Androscoggin Water Power Co. v. Bethel Steam Mill Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Debt, under E. S., c. 42, § 3, brought July 24, 1874, to recover twice the value of the plaintiffs’ logs alleged to have been taken by the defendants.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Debt, under E. S., c. 42, § 3, brought July 24, 1874, to recover twice the value of the plaintiffs’ logs alleged to have been taken by the defendants. The defence requested the presiding justice among other things, to rule that this action would not lie against a corporation, but he held otherwise, telling the jury that the defendants had capacity to subject themselves to liability under this section of the statutes by reason of the misconduct of their servants and agents in taking the plaintiffs’ logs, and that a verdict should be rendered for double the value of such logs (if…
1Opinion of the Court
Appleton, O. J.
This is an action of debt, brought under R. S., c. 42, § 3.
The question for determination is, whether this action is maintainable against a corporation. Its solution must depend upon the ascertainment of legislative intention as derived from the language of § 3, and the two preceding sections.
By § 1, “If any person takes, carries away or otherwise converts to his own use, without the consent of the owner any log suitable to be sawed or cut into boards, clapboards, &c., or any mast or spar, the property of another, whether the owner thereof be known or unknown, lying and being…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Delmar Jockey ClubSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- People v. Canadian Fur Trappers Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- VAUGHAN AND SONS INC. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987
- Falk v. Curtis Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1900
- Compton v. International Harvester Co. of America, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.