Foster v. Searsport Spool & Block Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion to set aside the verdict. There were also exceptions in the case, which were not considered, a new trial having been granted on the motion. An action of the case for damages caused by the breaking up of rafts of logs owned by the plaintiffs while passing through the defendant’s dam across Piscataquis river at Howland.
Read the full summary
On motion to set aside the verdict. There were also exceptions in the case, which were not considered, a new trial having been granted on the motion. An action of the case for damages caused by the breaking up of rafts of logs owned by the plaintiffs while passing through the defendant’s dam across Piscataquis river at Howland. The verdict was for plaintiffs for $847.99. The court will not disturb the verdict of the jury in cases of conflicting testimony, unless the result is so manifestly erroneous as to make it appear that it was produced by prejudice, bias or some improper influence or by…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
We regard this as a very important case; for if the law is as claimed by the plaintiff, it imposes upon mill owners a duty which it will be very difficult indeed if not impossible for them to perform.
It is claimed that the owner of a mill dam upon a floatable stream is obliged to provide a sluice through which large and loosety constructed rafts of logs may be run without being broken up.
We doubt whether the construction of such a sluice is practicable. The evidence shows that when one of these rafts enters a sluice, the more rapid current of the water in the sluice draws the front logs away…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Lehigh Valley Railway Co. v. State Tax CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Trullinger v. HoweOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Miller v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1910
- Waldo & Hughes v. BellSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1858