The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1893-06-15
PAGE BROS. VICTORIOUS.
They Win Their Appeal Against the Mile
e. Laos Lumber Cosnpany.

They Win Their Appeal Against the Mile
Laos Lumber Conlpany.
Pioneer. Press, June 10: Among
the decisions handed down yesterday
by Jmdge Collins, of the supreme court,
was mne in the case of b. T. Page ct
al, eo-partners as Page Bros, appel
lants, VS.. Mile Laos Lumber Company,
respondent, reversing the order of the
lower court. When plaintiffs rested
their case upon the trial the court dis
missed the same on the ground that
the testimony introduced was insult
ficient 80 sustain the action. A motion
Tor new trial was afterward denied,
and the questions involved were before
the supreme court on a bill of excep-
lions. Both parties have been en-
gagged in numbering for several years
upon Rum river, a stream navigable
for logs and timber. The plaintiffs
mill in Anoka and the defendants
about seventy-fve miles above at
Milaca, making it necessary for
plaintiffs logs to be driven past the
point at which defendants are taken
from the stream and manufactured.
The only practicable way in which
either of these mills could be sup
piled with logs was by driving them
down Rum river. Just above it's mill
1.-The defendant company constructed
two dams across the river about a half
mile apart, the natural result being to
create a pond and slack water above
leach, the slack water in the pond ex-
tending about 5000 feet above the up
per dam. In this pond the defendant
placed piers, piling and boom sticks, so
that a way was made forty to seventy
feet wide leading from about where
the slack water began directly to the
dam and crossing the original chan
mel of the stream. Side booms were
put in by defendant on either side of
the way and at a convenient place a
sorting gap, and all logs coming down
the river had to pass men in defend
ants employ stationed at the gap,
whose business it was to guide logs
I bearing defendants marks into these
side booms for Storage. and to allow all
other logs to pass on. Between the
dams there was piling and booms
4 The inevitable result was to delay and
4 detain plaintiffs and all other logs
q destined for points: below defendants
4 mill. S szf 81 sss ss
In 1890 and 1891 the plaintiffs were
engaged in making what is called {
clean drive Of the river, and the testi
mony produced by them on the tria
, tended to show that by reason of thu
, piers, piling, etc., before mentioned
and the way in which defendants EN-
ployes performed their work above ant
at the sorting gap and appropriated
! the river for the storage O
} defendants logs the passage of tho
: logs which plaintiffs we're driving wa
unnecessarily impeded and INSTRUCTED
, and that plaintiffs were unreasonabl,
t and oppressively delayed in their driv
, ing operations, to their great damage
f. and the object of this action was to re
= cover for such damage.
, WHY 1T WAS DISMISSED.
. The supreme court says that it is ap
1 parent that the trial Judge, although
r convinced that by reason of the main
g tenance of public nuisance in tn
! river, a wrong had been committed TO
: which plaintiffs should have redress
/ felt constrained to dismiss the actio
S on the authority of two recent cases
9 viz: Swanson VS.. Boom Co., AZ MINI.
t 532, and Sommers VS.. Brennan, 4
v MIMI, POO. The supreme court, how
r ever, is now convinced that an errO
i was committed in the application t
: the facts in the Swanson case of, tn
! statutory and we'll established rul
that an individual cannot maintain
= private action for a public nuisance b
e reason of any injury which he suffer
Y in common with the public, and that
Y is only when he sustains special injury
d differing in kind, not merely in degre
or extent, from that sustained by tn
: general public that he may recove
d damages in private action. An e7
d animation of the opinion recently file
d in Aldrich VS.. City, SO N. w. Rep
g 1912, will indicate that the suprem
n court then had doubts of the correc
s ness of the decision in Swanson "
e Boom CO. The public wrong inficte
upon all persons must be redressed by
$ public prosecution and the private il
d jury by an appropriate private actio1
= The defendant had the right, as ha
: the plaintiff, to use the river as a hig]
y, way for the purposes of navigation
ID and incident to this, the right to secu,
: its logs inside booms, although the i
10 evitable result would be to temporari