Dufur v. Lewis River Boom & Logging Co.

Citations

• 89 Wash. 279
• 154 P. 463
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 694

Syllabus

<p>Logs and Logging — Booming Company — Liability fob Loss — Statutes. A booming and driving company is not obligated to catch and boom all the logs that may be driven down a stream, under the statute, either prior to its amendment in 1909, when booming and driving companies were (by Laws 1889-90, p. 470, as amended by Laws 1895, p. 128 and Laws 1905, pp. 108 and 232) only required to boom logs which the owner requested to be caught or logs which came down not in charge of the owner, regardless of the original navigability of the stream; nor after its amendment, when by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7123, tolls were authorized by a driving and booming company, operating on a stream that was theretofore navigable, for all logs which it drives or booms at the request of the owner, or without such request when commingled with other logs or which obstructed the drive, and also upon logs which are driven or floated down a stream which was not navigable prior to the company’s improvement of the stream.</p> <p>Same — Booming Company — Action fob Loss of Logs — Pleading —Complaint—Sufficiency—Legal Conclusion. A complaint against a booming and driving company for the loss of logs floated down the stream must allege facts to show that the plaintiff’s logs reached the defendant’s boom in some of the ways which, under the statute, imposed the duty to catch and boom them, since the company is not obligated to boom all logs that may be driven; and where the complaint is silent as to the facts, the mere allegation that “it became the duty of defendant to catch and hold” the logs is a mere conclusion of law and insufficient to state, a cause of action.</p>