S. S. Thompson & Co. v. Straub
S. S. Thompson & Co. v. Straub
Opinion of the Court
This suit was brought by the plaintiff corporation to recover from the defendants ten cents per cubic yard for soil -deposited upon the lands of the latter by the firm of Eournier Brothers. The claim’ of the plaintiff was that fifty-eight thousand one hundred and sixty-two cubic yards of soil had been ’deposited upon the defendants’ lands, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover therefor the sum of ten cents per cubic yard. The defendants denied any obligation to pay for any part of the soil so deposited. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding it the sum of $2,900. The defendants seek to have this award set aside upon the ground that it is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
The situation exhibited by the proofs was as follows: The plaintiff corporation had entered into a contract with the state highway commission to construct a drawbridge over the Matawan creek, near the town of Keyport. It subcontracted the necessary dredging to Eournier Brothers. After the soil had been dredged by the subcontractors, they agreed with the defendants that they would deposit this soil on the lands of the latter, if they desired such deposit to be made, at the price of ten cents per cubic yard. In making this agrément, they were acting on behalf of the plaintiff, who controlled the
The court left it to the jury to determine whether or not this soil was deposited by Fournier Brothers from time to-time on the defendants’ lands, with the knowledge of the-latter and without any objection by them, and by its verdict it resolved this question in favor of the plaintiff. We think the testimony justified the jury in so concluding. This being-so, and the total amount of soil specified in the complaint having been actually deposited on the defendants’ lands, as-their counsel admits in his brief, the fact that no measurement was made by the engineers of the state highway commission and no report of the amount of the deposit furnished to the defendants does not, in our opinion, absolve them from liability to pay the price agreed upon for the amount of soil
Counsel further argues that the verdict is contrary to the law and in violation of the court’s charge. This, however, is not set out as a reason for making the rule absolute, and, consequently, is a matter not involved in the determination •of the present rule.
Our conclusion is that the rule to show cause should be 'discharged.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- S. S. THOMPSON & COMPANY, INCORPORATED v. ELMER W. STRAUB
- Status
- Published