The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-05-19
AN rmpORTANr DECrsuoN.
The Lewiston Steam Will Company vs..
Richardson Lake Dam Company.

~@~~N-N
The following is the rescript in the Lewis
ton Steam Mill Company VS.. Richardson Lake
Dam Company as drawn by Judge Haskell
ard concurred in by Chief Justice Peters,
Judges Walton, Virgin, Libbey and Emery:
Prior to the date of the defendants charter the
Androscoggn river and the chain of lakes and their
connecting streams from which that river takes its
rise, were navigable by the usual methods of lum
bering, and had been so used for many years.
The distance by these waters from Big Lake to
the Topsham boom is more than one hundred and
seventy miles, and the usual time required to ac-
years
waters, the Legislature chartered the defendant
company by special act approved March %, 1853,
them as would facilitate and render con-
venient the drifting, driving of logs masts spars
and other timber, by removing Instructions, build
FORTH" and to take and hold real and personal
estate for the purpose to an amount not exceeding
$4,000. 1t was authorized to demand and receive
specified toll upon every log that should pass its
dam at the outlet of Big Lake, and an additional
toll for passing the dam at the outlet of Richard
son Lake. The purpose of these dams Is to store
water for aid in the driving of shallow and rocky
places below them. They make 1t possible to de-
i lVer boom OF logs from Big Lake into the Tops
nam boom in one season, that ordinarily without
them 1t would require four seasons to accomplish
The object, scope and purpose of this corporation
49, 10 facilitate navigation for the benefit of lumber
men, from whom r may demand and receive its
tolls. Its functions are, to benefit the numbering
industry from whence its revenues are to come IL
can exact tolls, and in return is bound by law to
grant and render In reasonable manner to the in
dustry burdened by them, all the facilities that it
common right Dy authority Of its charter. of
course it cannot be required to discharge so great
Hood OF water as to endaDger other interests law
fully existing below its dams on the Androscoggin
waters. Nor can it withhold water so to diminish
the natural How, that each riparian owner, has
lawfully right to enjoy.
The plaintiff drove these waters in the years 1872
1850 and 1882, and paid to the defendant tolls
amounting to S2,626.32. The plaintiff claims that
the defendant, by virtue of its charter, was re-
CURED to give such facilities for the driving of lu
Der during those years. as its resources afforded.
The defendant, on the other hand contends that
other interests than those of lumbermen were to be
considered in determining what were the reasona-
pie facilities that II was required by law to afford
the plaintiff 1t claims that the mills at Lewiston
were interested in retaining store of water in the
lakes by means Of its dams and that such interests
ought to be considered in fixing the amount of wat
er that the plaintiff could lawfully demand: and in
order that such consideration might be weighed and
considered by the jury it offered in evidence proof
OF the mill owners at Lewiston by authority of law
had acquired and owned all the stock of the defend
ant company, and the land upon which its dams at
the outlets OF Big and Richardson Lakes, respect
lively, are built. To the exclusion of this evidence
the defendant has exception.
NO authority has been cited at the bar showing
the admssibility of the evidence excluded. Under
its charter the defendant corporation is authorized
and required by law, in Consideration for the re-
cevng OF tolls to confer increased facilities in the
enjoyment OF common right. To this purpose and
end its functions go. So long as 1t gathers from
stream, just so long must it contribute an euuva-
lent to those burdened with the toll. Thew have a
right to demand and receive from the defendant the
full advantage of whatever it can reasonably give
them from the resources that it has been allowed
Dy law to accumulate and retain. The wants de-
slres or demands of particular shareholder in a
corporation, charged by law with duties and obga-
tons to the public, cannot abridge or modify such
duties or obligations They are fixed by law. and the
cOrDOratlOH To fha
functions authorized by its charter must respond,
regardless of the private interest Of any one or ali
OF It's shareholders. suppose large manufacturer
should acquire the major part of the stock Of rail-
way company, would it be competent for the COM
pany In suit against it for the denial of proper
transportation facilities, to show in defense that
this manufacturer was an owner of the controlling
portion OF its stock and thereby had right in fur
tnerance OF his own purposes to deny such reasona-
bic facilities for transportation as the law REQUIRES?
Would the fact that he was a Shareholder either
increase or diminish the liability of the corporation
to the public? If not. then the fact would be who'll
ly immaterial The law gives to each Shareholder
an equal right with others to the uses and benefits
the railway can afford, regardless Of his interest in
the stock of the company and that fact conld have
no bearing upon the liability of the corporation to
others.
So in the case at bar, it is Of no consequence
VINO are the shareholders in the defendant com
pany. Whatever liability the law casts upon
it towards the public can neither be increased nor
diminished at the will or desire of any shareholder
Its functions are to facilitat the lumber nayiga-
ton Of the Androscoggin waters and as equiva-
whole resources to that end and purpose.
Nor is it material who the owners of the lands
upon which the dams are built. so long as the de-
1endant company maintains them for the purpose
expressed In its charter. II in order to ACQUIRE the
right to maintain the dams, the defendant became
under obligations modifying its full and compleae
control and use of the water for the purposes ex-
pressed ID It's charter such obligations might have
70 De regarded because its tenure would be subject
70 sucn limited use. No evidence of this sort has
been excluded. The defendant simply offered In
this behalf to show that another was the owner of
ruhIA IAh Sc fVl.
NAKED fact has no bearing upon the issue decided
by the Jury. The evidence excluded does not tend
70 prove any material fact in defence of the plain
That the Union Water Power Company was an
tnorlzed BY the legislature to acquire and hold the
STOCK OF defendant company does not in any do
gree mod1y or change the functions of the corpora
ton Its duties and obligations continue the same
That It's charter under the law originally imposed
Iunctlons under its charter, it must de so in ac-
eoraance WIN It's terms burdened with those duties
and OBJ 1gations which the law imposes.
True it is, that the mill owners below as riparian
proprIeors may require of the defendant the natI-
raj now OF the waters OF the stream as they may
need them, but the defendant owes them no duty
70 retain and store up water for their in times
of drought.
A careful consideration of the evidence fails to
snow that the jury has erred in its verdict The
defendant manifestly had means to afford the
plaintiff greater facilities in the driving of its logs
snring the years 1873, 1880. and 1882 than it ac-
corded to 1t. 1t had right to demand from the
defendant more water than It received during each
OF those years. The denial to it of this use was an
ful, lengthy trial, with plenary instructions and
rulings in matters of law, to which no exceptions
other than those noticed in this opinion were taken
resulted in verdict for the plaintiff
lt is hard to say, whether the measure of dam
ages nxed by the jury is precisely commensurate
WIN Win tne Rlalnts injury but it does not appear
influenced by any improper motive, or consdera-
tioH IN reaching their verdict is it clear that
new trial would end in more satisfactory result.
Inc mOIl0n ana exceptions OV0rruled.