Mitchell v. Lea Lumber Co.

Citations

• 43 Wash. 195
• 86 P. 405
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>Logs and Logging — Injury to Soil by Driving Logs — Damages— Evidence — Sufficiency. In an action by a riparian owner against a mill company for damages caused by the driving of shingle bolts down a river, a nonsuit on the ground that a booming company and not the mill company was the guilty party, is erroneous, where it appears that the mill company stockholders had acquired the control of-the boom company, and used it only for the mill company, which paid for all the labor employed in booming, and where the answer of the mill company admitted that the river was used as it had been in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which the evidence showed to be a license subject to the payment of plaintiff’s damages by the defendant; since the boom company was only the agency through which the mill company acted.</p> <p>Same — Damages—Evidence—Definiteness. Damages to the land of a riparian owner by the floatage of shingle bolts is sufficiently definite to support a judgment where there is evidence that, by the driving of bolts and formation of jams, the soil was cut away from 6 to 10 feet along the river for a distance of 800 or 1,000 feet, and the value of the land taken is shown to be at least $50.</p> <p>Same — Boom Companies — Negligence in Driving. Damages to riparian owners by the use of a river for the floatage of timber products must be based upon negligence in the operation, and cannot be recovered where the floatage is conducted with reasonable care and prudence (Dunbar, J., dissenting).</p> <p>Same — Evidence of Negligence. Negligence in the floatage of logs is shown where the river was very tortuous, jams were frequently formed, allowed to remain, and not released at the earliest practicable moment.</p> <p>Same — Remedies—Injunction. The threatened negligent use of a stream for floatage purposes, may be enjoined at the suit of a riparian owner who will be damaged thereby.</p>