Knowlton v. Hoit
| Decision Date | 11 March 1802 |
| Citation | 30 A. 346,67 N.H. 155 |
| Parties | KNOWLTON et al. v. HOIT. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Hillsborough county.
Trespass by T. O. Knowlton and others against John W. Hoit. There was a verdict for. defendant, and plaintiffs except Exception overruled, and judgment for defendant.
The defendant bought the standing timber on a lot adjoining the plaintiffs' land, and made a contract with one Hazen to cut the standing trees into lumber, at an agreed price per 1,000 feet Hazen performed the contract, hiring and paying his men. Beyond making the contract and paying the price agreed, the defendant had nothing to do with cutting the timber. The defendant took the lumber from the lot in felling the trees, some of them fell upon and across the plaintiffs' fence and wall, breaking some of the boards, and throwing down some of the top stones of the wall; and, in trimming them, some of the limbs were left on the plaintiffs' land. The defendant afterwards repaired the wall and fence, and removed the most of the limbs and brush from the plaintiffs' land. The defendant does not own the laud on which the timber was cut. The court found that the oak tree for which the plaintiffs claim damages was not on the plaintiffs' land, and, being of the opinion that the defendant was not responsible for the injury to the plaintiffs' wall, fence, and land by the acts of Hazen and his men in cutting the lumber, found a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiffs excepted.
T. O. Knowlton, for plaintiffs.
D. A. Taggart, for defendant.
SMITH, J. Hazen was a contractor, exercising an independent employment and selecting his own servants and workmen. He was not an ordinary laborer, personally engaged in the cutting of the trees, nor acting under control of the defendant The injuries of which the plaintiffs complain were not the natural result of the work contracted to be done. The contract was to do an act in itself lawful, and the authority conferred by the defendant on Hazen was that of executing it in a lawful manner. The maxim "respondeat superior" does not apply. Carter v. Mills Co., 58 N. H. 52. Judgment for the defendant.
CLARK J., did not sit The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Co. v. Jackson
... ... Co., 191 Mich. 405, 158 N.W. 36, 19 A.L.R. 1164-67; ... McBride v. Jerry Madden Shingle Co., 173 Mich. 248, ... 138 N.W. 1077; Knowlton v. Hoit, 67 N.H. 155, 30 A ... 346; Gay v. Roanoke R. R. & Lbr. Co., 148 N.C. 336, ... 62 S.E. 436; Scales v. First State Bank, 88 Or. 490, ... ...
-
Schroer v. Brooks
... ... (11) Mr. Brooks is not liable for the trespass, if such there ... was, of Britt's employees. Fink v. Mo. Furnace ... Co., 82 Mo. 276; Knowlton v. Hoit, 67 N.H. 155, ... 30 A. 346; East St. Louis v. Giblin, 3 Ill.App. 219; ... Carter v. Berlin Mills Co., 58 N.H. 52, 42 Am. Rep ... ...
- Roberts v. Hillsborough Mills
-
Thomas v. Harrington
...owners, such damage is legally attributable to the company, and may be recovered of it. This doctrine is recognized in Knowlton v. Hoit, 67 N. H. 155, 30 Atl. 346, and in Manchester v. Warren, 67 N. H. 482, 32 Atl. 763." See, also, Pittsfield, etc., Co. v. Shoe Co., 71 N. H. 522, 53 Atl. 80......