Crookston Waterworks, Power & Light Co. v. Sprague
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Polk county by Crookston Waterworks, Power & Fight Company to recover $12,000 damages for defendant’s negligence in driving certain logs over plaintiff’s dam in Red Rake river at Crookston, whereby the dam was partly destroyed and plaintiff’s business injured. The case was tried, without a jury, before Watts, J., who found in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Polk county by Crookston Waterworks, Power & Fight Company to recover $12,000 damages for defendant’s negligence in driving certain logs over plaintiff’s dam in Red Rake river at Crookston, whereby the dam was partly destroyed and plaintiff’s business injured. The case was tried, without a jury, before Watts, J., who found in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. In the general conduct of their pursuits and in their general uses of this river, both parties were within their rights. The riparian owner has a…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
Appellant owned the riparian lands on both sides of the Red Lake river, in Crookston, and a dam constructed at that point. Respondent, a citizen of Winnipeg, on June 6, 1899, owned a large quantity of logs that were collected in the river at a point about five hundred feet above the dam. Respondent opened the boom, and allowed the logs to float down the stream over the dam, without any attempt on his part, and without any effort on the part of appellant, to direct or confine them to the sluiceways. The dam was considerably injured at different places, and this action was brought to recover…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- State of Penn. v. THE WHEELING &C. BRIDGE CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Morrill v. Saint Anthony Falls Water-Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Red River Roller Mills v. WrightSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Page v. Mille Lacs Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Viebahn v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State v. Tower Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Johnson v. Wild Rice Boom Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Selover v. Isle Harbor Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907