Hulet v. Wishkah Boom Co.

Citations

• 54 Wash. 510
• 103 P. 814
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1026

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—Objections Not Made Below. In tbe absence of a demurrer, and of tbe evidence, objection to tbe sufficiency of tbe complaint will not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>Navigable Waters — Obstructions—Injunctions—Parties Entitled to Sue. Riparian owners on a navigable stream, whose means of ingress and egress to and from tbeir lands is totally obstructed by a boom company, are entitled to maintain an action to enjoin tbe obstruction, although it may be a public nuisance.</p> <p>Same — Parties Liable. An order compelling a boom company to remove a boom and clear away logs and jams in a river, is warranted, notwithstanding that tbe acts of loggers were claimed to have caused tbe obstructions, where it appears by tbe findings that tbe boom company contracted with loggers for tbe use of its splash dams, whereby logs were driven down tbe stream by artificial freshets, a toll being paid to tbe company for such drives, that tbe log jams and injury to riparian owners resulted therefrom, that more logs were driven down than could be bandied by tbe company’s boom, and that tbe loggers placed a boom across tbe river to bold such accumulations, which boom the company opened from time to time and replaced; since the loggers are shown to be so closely connected with the company as to be either its servants or joint tort feasors.</p> <p>Same — Riparian Owners — Rights on Tide Waters. The objection that riparian owners on a tide water stream have no riparian rights of ingress and egress by reason of the state’s ownership of intervening tide lands, does not go to their right to an injunction to prevent artificial freshets whereby their uplands are damaged and washed away, and logs deposited thereon, or to prevent unnecessary interference with the public right of navigation on the stream.</p>