McDonell v. Rifle Boom Co.
| Citation | 71 Mich. 61,38 N.W. 681 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1888 |
| Parties | MCDONELL v. RIFLE BOOM CO. |
Error to circuit court, Arenac county; S. M. GREEN, Judge.
This was an action by Isabella McDonell against the Rifle Boom Company, to recover damages caused by overflowing plaintiff's land. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
The plaintiff is owner of 160 acres of land upon the Rifle river and about 12 miles up the stream from its mouth. She purchased this land for farming purposes, in 1872, and has since owned and up to 1884 been in actual occupation of the same. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, and operating upon the Rifle river, running and booming logs. Plaintiff sues for damages sustained, as she claims, in the years 1876, '77 '78, '79, and 1880-81, by the overflow of her lands by water caused by the operations of the defendant in running and driving logs down said river. In the circuit court for the county of Arenac she recovered a verdict for $625, and judgment was entered upon the same. The defendant brings error. Its complaint is directed entirely against the charge of the court. There does not seem to have been, on the trial any very serious dispute as to the damage done plaintiff by the running of logs upon the river in all, or at least some of these years. The main controversy turned upon the question, who was responsible for it? The defendant did not run or drive these logs directly by its own employes, but the same was done under contract, and it claims that the control of the river, the dams upon it, and the logs while they were being run or driven each year, was by the defendant turned over to the contractor or contractors. The defendant contends that it did not direct or control the mode in which the river should be driven by the contractors, and exercised no control over them or the men in their employ relative to the driving of the logs in the river or the management of the dams thereon, and that, consequently, it was not responsible for the action of said contractors or their employes. There is a small stream called the "Dead Branch," running through plaintiff's land, and emptying into the Rifle river. The boom company controls the Rifle for from 60 to 80 miles above its mouth. It owns two upper dams on the river, and leases what is known as the "Lower Dam," which is located some three or four miles above the plaintiff's premises. The company runs out of the river each year from 60 to 110 million feet of logs. These dams are used to collect and hold the water until such times as they choose to let it out and flood the stream for the purposes of floating. It is claimed that the lower dam is also used for sorting purposes, and that every time the water is let out of this dam for either driving or sorting purposes, the Rifle is raised so high that the water backs up the Dead Branch, and overflows the lands of the plaintiff. At the mouth of the river the company maintains a large boom, and they have driven piles in the stream 40 or 50 rods from its mouth across the full width of it, leaving a small space or channel in the center. Seventy or eighty rods above this first row of piles is another, driven in the same manner, and eighty rods above this another lot of piles are driven in the center of the stream, called "Jam Piles." Boom sticks are stretched across the spaces left in the river, which boom sticks are fastened to piles driven in the river or on the shore, completely obstructing the river when desired. The company constructed dredge cuts on either side of the river near its mouth, small cuts, 25 or 30 feet wide, dredged out from the river, and leading into Saginaw bay. These cuts are used for sorting purposes. The company stops, stores, and sorts in the river all the logs. The logs are stopped at the jam piles as they come down the stream, by means of the boom sticks stretched from such piles to the shore, and the logs are held in the stream until sorted and passed through the dredge cuts to the bay. It is admitted that these logs cannot be sorted successfully in this manner without keeping, during the driving season, a jam in some portion of the river all the time. Logs cannot be sorted without stopping them, and the business cannot be done without creating a jam in the river, and this jam must necessarily be above the sorting ground. It is claimed that this jam would often be several miles in length up the stream, causing the water to be more or less obstructed in its flow and setting it back up into the Dead Branch, overflowing plaintiff's land. The injuries resulted from this cause and the letting off of water from the lower dam, as heretofore stated. The contracts of the boom company with the persons who were to drive the logs provided that they should drive and deliver to the company ...
To continue reading
Request your trial