Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1923-10-03
DAM DAMAGE SUITS.
Power Company Files Bill in Equity
to Compel Joint Action.

The Bar Harbor & Union River
Power Co. yesterday filed a bill in
equity, returnable at the November
term of equity court, Tuesday, Nov.
6, praying that the court order or de-
cree that the suits brought against
the power company for damages be
consolidated, Sin the interests of
justice and economy, and to relieve
the threatened pressure upon the
court and people"
The defendants specifically named
in the complaint are the Dirigo
Theatre Co., Ellsworth Foundry &
Machine Works, Hancock County
Farmers Union, City of Ellsworth,
MorangRobinson Co., Inc, Noyes
Motor Car Co., Harry S. Jones, Hol
lis B. Estey, John A. Peters, D. E.
Linnehan, Max Dennis, j. Fred
Studer, Charles S. Cottle, Edwin M.
Moore Mabel Studer and Fulton
Redman. These are the parties who
have already brought suits against
the power company, but the COM
plant also includes "all other own
ers of real or personal property in
jured by the recent freshet on Union
river and Brimmer's bridge" in an
ticipation of suits yet to be filed.
In several of the suits already
brought against the power company,
notice has been given for trial at the
October term One of the attorneys
for plaintiffs in these cases said yes
terday that he believed the action of
the power company in bringing the
equity suit was clever move to OBJ
tain a continuance in the suits pend
ing in October. He will fight against
a continuance of the suits, as delay
he said, would work a severe hard
ship to several of his clients.
The bill of complaint filed by the
Bar Harbor e Union River Power
Co, after stating that it was the
owner OF the land on both sides of
Unicr river at Brimmer's bridge, and
is there constructing storage DAM
at the time of the freshet, and STILL
in an unfinished condition, recites;
That on said 2Sth day of April, and
| for the succeeding seven days there
after, there was an unprecedented
freshet on said Union river. due to
heavy rains while the watershed of
said river was covered with several
feet of snow and ice.
That on or about April 29th. two
saw-miH dams on said river. situated
some two miles below said stsrage
dam, broke and added the volume of
water by said mill dams held to the
freshet then running in said river.
That the breaking of said saw-min
dams not only added to said freshet
the volume of water held by said dams,
but also freed and carried down said
swollen river, on it's surface great
quantities of logs and lumber, sheds
and other small buildings and struc-
lures, up-rooted trees and other flot-
sam, together with earth, gravel and
boulders rolled by said waters.
That on May End following said
April 18th, and at least two days after
the breaking of said two saw mill dams,
the storage dam of said plaintiff COM
pany under construction as aforesaid,
also broke and added the volume of
water by it held to said freshet.
That as the result of said freshet
and said breaking dams much real
and personal property within the reach
and influence of said freshet was in
fact destroyed or injured, not only
property of said respondents named
hereinabove but also of very many
others to your complainant unknown.
That each of the respondents herein
above specifically named has already
brought suit at law for the damage
caused by said freshet, naming as de-
PENDANT in each lawsuit your COM
plainant power company alone,
That your complainant is informed
and believes and therefore alleges that
all and each other owner of real or
personal property so damaged by said
freshet, from the mouth of said Union
river upstream to the site OF said
storage dam Ca distance of some six
miles or more), is likely to proceed
at law in this court against your COM
plainant to recover damages for the
injury caused by said freshet to the
property of each such other owner,
That the real estate ownership alone
at and during said freshet was and is
subdiviued into so many small parcels,
upon both banks of said Union river
from it's mouth to said storage dam
site, as to bring the total number of
such actions at law to more than one
hundred.
That the expense of such litigation,
in money and time to individuals and
corporations, public private munich
pal and political win or would be
enormous and Wasteful
That all these present and future
proceedings at law have at bottom one
fundamental and common basis, to wit
the legal liability on the part of your
complainant power company, or any
other corporation, partnership, individ-
uals or individual, for the property loss
due to said freshet and it's unprece-
dented rush of waters.