Lake Auburn Crystal Ice Co. v. City of Lewiston

• Decision Date: 14 November 1912
• Citation: 84 A. 1004,109 Me. 489
• Parties: LAKE AUBURN CRYSTAL ICE CO. et al. v. CITY OF LEWISTON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

84 A. 1004

109 Me. 489

LAKE AUBURN CRYSTAL ICE CO. et al.

v. CITY OF LEWISTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 14, 1912.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5693-5728; vol. 8, pp. 7768-7770.]

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County, in Equity.

Action by the Lake Auburn Crystal Ice Company and another against the City of Lewiston. On report. Decree for plaintiff.

Argued before WHITEHOUSE, C. J., and SAVAGE, SPEAR, CORNISH, KING, and HALEY, JJ.

White & Carter and Newell & Skelton, all of Lewiston, for plaintiffs.

Frank A. Morey, of Lewiston, for defendant.

SPEAR, J. This ease is reported upon an agreed statement of facts, and involves the constitutionality of chapter 92 of the Private and Special Laws of 1911. Under the agreed statement five questions arise:

1. Is the Androscoggin river, at the point in question, a floatable and nontidal stream?

2. If so, were the complainants riparian proprietors?

3. Did the city of Lewiston acquire, by virtue of its Harrisburg lease, any title to the ice forming upon the river in front of the complainant's shore?

4. Is the title to the ice in a floatable stream in the riparian owner, or in the public?

5. Is ice upon a floatable stream formed over and above the land, belonging in fee to the owner, property, within the meaning of section 21 of the Declaration of Rights, which provides: "Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation, nor unless the public exigencies require it."

6. Was it the intention of the city to cut and harvest ice upon the river upon the ice field alleged to be covered by the complainants' title, to the extent of enabling the complainants to maintain their bill and be entitled to the relief prayed for?

Every one of these questions, except the sixth, is so thoroughly analyzed and fully settled in favor of the complainants in the comprehensive and exhaustive opinion in Wilson & Son v. Harrisburg, 107 Me. 207, 77 Atl. 787, a case involving the identical premises in controversy, that a further review of the authorities applicable to the issues here raised would be a work of supererogation. Nor can there be any doubt, upon the evidence, under these rules of interpretation, that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed, and can maintain their bill.

But the defendants contend that they are authorized by special act of the Legislature to enter upon the ice field described in the plaintiffs' bill for the...