Shaw v. Susquehanna Boom Co.

Citations

• 125 Pa. 324
• 17 A. 426
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 719

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action to recover damages from a boom company for the loss of property resulting from an ice-jam and flood, alleged to have been due to the existence of the dam and piers of the company, the opinion of a witness as to the cause of the ice-jam was inadmissible, though he lived by the side of the boom for years and knew the condition of the river before the boom was built.</p> <p>2. Evidence as to declarations of a former president of the boom company that the piers, which were raised above, were originally built below the surface of the water, for the purpose of allowing the ice to pass over them, was also inadmissible; and a compulsory nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant was in any way responsible for the losses complained of, was sustained.</p>