It is ordered and adjudged that tbe judgment of tbe said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, for tbe reasons that while tbe evidence tended to prove that tbe plaintiff in error was injured by a board suspended or falling from tbe bridge, and tended to prove that tbe defendant in error, together with others, bad agreed to keep tbe bridge in repair, it did not tend to prove that tbe board had ever been a part of tbe bridge, nor that it bad ever been a part of tbe property of tbe defendant in error, nor that tbe defendant in error bad any part in causing it to fall or be suspended from *611 the bridge, nor that the defendant in error had any knowledge of its existence or presence on or suspension from the bridge, nor that the bridge was in the exclusive control of the defendant in error, so as to make the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable.

Judgment affirmed.