The West Branch Boom Company v. Dodge et al.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 31 Pa. 285
• Parties: The West Branch Boom Company v. Dodge et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

31 Pa. 285

The West Branch Boom Company v. Dodge et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Clinton county.

Mayer and Hale, for the plaintiffs in error.

Armstrong, for defendants in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LOWRIE, C. J.

We find great difficulty in understanding the details of the act incorporating this company, and, of course, we must be careful that the public interests do not suffer by any constructive enlargement of its privileges. We have no legislative power; and when special privileges, against common right, are claimed, all we have to say is, show us the grant plainly and intelligibly written.

We must put the main part of the seventh section into as few words as possible, in order to how show senseless it is to us. Briefly, we read it thus: — Lumber intended to be driven further down the river than the place of the boom, and not to be rafted at the boom, shall, on notice and for a certain toll, be taken up by the company and turned through the boom as fast as the owners want it for rafting below (at) the boom. As we cannot make sense out of this, by itself, we must consider the whole act, and try what we can make out of other parts of it.

The second section says that the boom is "for the purpose of stopping and securing logs, masts, spars, or other lumber floating upon the river." But this defines nothing; for it may apply to rafts, with or without men on them; to lumber floating loose, with men in attendance; to lumber designedly set adrift to find its way to some point below, and to lumber accidentally passing down the stream; depending on the meaning that we might attach to the word "floating."

Looking further, we discover that the boom was thought of in its relations to the public navigating the river by rafts and other craft, to the owners of lumber driven on the river, and to the owners of rafts that have been staved.

1. As against persons navigating the river with rafts and other craft, it is plain enough, that the boom is not entitled to occupy more than one-half the width of the river; and that the half left unobstructed must be capable of navigation, when the river would be so if the boom were not there: § 2.

2. In its relation to the owners of driven lumber, desiring to have it stopped in the boom, and giving due notice thereof, it seems to be the duty of the company to take and secure the same, and deliver it below the boom, ready for rafting, in the manner and for the tolls fixed by the law: §§ 5, 6, 7: 6 Greenl. R. 93, 105; 7 Id. 136.

The fifth section says, that they shall suffer no lumber in the boom to escape, and that they shall raft all the lumber therein; and section sixth gives toll for all the lumber boomed, rafted, and secured, and section eighth gives a right of sale for the tolls on lumber boomed, rafted, and secured. Hence we infer, that the law does not intend that there shall be any lumber boomed that is not intended to be rafted there, and that they have no right to obstruct, by their boom, the passage of lumber intended to be driven further...