Snohomish River Boom Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1910
• Citation: 107 P. 848,57 Wash. 693
• Parties: SNOHOMISH RIVER BOOM CO. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

107 P. 848

57 Wash. 693

SNOHOMISH RIVER BOOM CO. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 25, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. W. Black Judge.

Action by the Snohomish River Boom Company against the Great Northern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. V Brown and Frederic G. Dorety, for appellant.

Cooley & Horan, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

The respondent brought this action to recover the sum of $1,987.97, as compensation for expenses incurred in handling logs and reconstructing a logging boom made necessary by the building of a new bridge by the defendant. This bridge was constructed across the plaintiff's boom, and interfered therewith. The action was tried to the court without a jury findings of fact were made, and a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $1,371.75. The defendant has appealed.

The court made findings which were separately stated and numbered, and were to the effect that the plaintiff was a corporation engaged in catching, booming, and rafting logs in Steamboat slough, one of the channels of the Snohomish river emptying into Puget Sound in Snohomish county and a part of the navigable waters of the United States; that the plaintiff has maintained such boom at the point where the defendant's bridge crosses said slough for more than 18 years, in accordance with plans approved by the Secretary of War of the United States and in conformity with its plat as filed with the Secretary of State of Washington; that the defendant is a railway corporation doing business in this state; that in December, 1906, the defendant commenced construction of a steel railway bridge across said slough and over and across the plaintiff's boom; that the plans and the location of said bridge were approved by the Secretary of War before the construction thereof was begun, and that the bridge was constructed in accordance with the map of location and plans, and that the piers, false work, and piling were provided for and necessary for carrying out of said plans; but that a line of dolphins placed within the limits of said boom of said plaintiff was not provided for in said plans or authorized by the permit issued by the Secretary of War. Findings number 5 and 6 are as follows:

'(5) That in the construction of said bridge the above-named defendant, without the consent of and against the protest of said plaintiff and without any compensation having first been made or paid into court for said plaintiff, erected and placed in said river and across said boom, false work supporting said bridge, consisting of piles driven in the bed of said stream, which completely closed said boom excepting for a gap about 14 feet wide left therein, and that for the purpose of deflecting the logs coming down said stream and into said boom through said false work the said defendant drove a line of dolphins above said bridge and laid a line of boom sticks to deflect said logs and timber products coming into said boom through said gap in said false work, and that thereafter and as a part of said bridge the said defendant erected in the bed of said stream at a point about the center of plaintiff's boom a permanent pier for the purpose of carrying said bridge.

'(6) That shortly after the aforesaid work was commenced by said defendant the plaintiff protested to said defendant and threatened to commence proceeding to enjoin the doing of said work and the construction of said bridge upon account of the injury and damage which it sustained by reason thereof, and that said defendant promised and agreed to pay said plaintiff all damages which it might suffer by reason of the construction of said bridge, including the cost of the additional labor for the sluicing of the logs through said false work, and after the completion of said bridge to remove said false work and the aforesaid dolphins and reconstruct the boom of said plaintiff in as safe and efficient a manner as it was at the time of the commencement of the work upon said bridge.'

The findings then recited that the plaintiff, by reason of the said construction of the bridge, was required to employ additional labor, amounting to the sum of $2,425.50, in order to run logs through the said false work; that after the construction of the bridge the defendant neglected to remove certain false work, and thereby rendered it impracticable for plaintiff to handle logs and timber through the said boom that the defendant failed and neglected...