vol.. 50. which right is in no manner menaced by the proposed action of the defendants. The motion to vacate the restraining order i8 t!l.efore "
NEW YOllK, JJ.'E1;& W. Rv. CO'fI. 'BENNETT (Ott'cuU oaWrc1Qf AppeaZt, Sfzth CirCldt· JutJ:e No'.ll. L OUBIJJlS Oll
el
w:.
6, 1892.)
, '" ticket provides that "no agent or employe ha& PowertO'moafiy thisllOntrlilit in any pat'tioulal', .. neither the ticket agent nor bag, .gal1C1 the holder Is, required to ohal1g&c&rs authority' to. lD!ltruct sVQb Ra,ssenger to take a lii:nlted express trmn, upon which only 1irsto1ass'tickete are·S<!ciepted. . . ,' I. Buni. ' ' . 4s b,stweeR sl1ch a t.rain and the passenger the tioket i.. COnclusiV:1l evl<lence as to ,the latter's'right of and the conductor hall no authority to accept it for p&llse.ge on that train." ., " 8. BAllE: . J' , , who "P.P,.lie4 for I'Ildpnrchaeed a second-class ticket, and hall used suoh. I.s\bound br its terina, whether. he has read them or nOt.; , ., tickets .. BAlIB. '." , , ': The failure" of a· train oarrying second-c1aBs passengers to with the pi'oper train of ,nother road, .the two roads forming a through linl\ does not impos& UPOIl the second road an' obUgation to transport passengers holaing second-cla. through ticket&'upon the ne1t ,train,_ limited express,-upon which suoh tickets ., are n4jlt valid. I. BuurEJEOTHBNOf OJ' P A woman two iDfailtchildren, traveling on a seoond-olass tioket, boarded a limited train. upon Which firat-olass tickets only are valid. The oonduowr refused bar ticket,and at ,the next station she was put oft. .It was in the evening, andsherema{ned at the dt\pot fOr a time,'till at he1'request she was sent to an hotel, ,., and the .neltt ,day money wali .collected' With )Vbichshe retut'lled bome. where she had,B./l atta9l!:<of nervous prolltration. She testified, tbe language of ·the conductor in refusinit her ticket: "It was very rough ;so mucb 80 that is what lIO&l'ed memos\. ,If lie bad spoken,pleasant to me, it would 1l.ave been so much better. He spQ\w llP in such a.cofflxq,and,ing way. ", She furtb\ll' said that at the depot the conductOr" IImd something abotit. sending her to a hospital in a patrol wagon. HeUi, that the llY'idently imperative manner and', form of speeoh of the conduotor are not actional:!le in the absence of violence, or other willful misoonduct, and a. verdict for 'defendant should have been directed. ,
LINES.
In :ij:rrQl' tp fAe Circuit. .of the United States, for the Southern, Division of DiE;!trict of Tennessee. Action by ills. Hattie her husband, John R. Benagainst the :New York, Latre Erie & Western Company for .V plaintiff. Defendant brings error. A," motion to dismiss the writ of error was .heretofore denied, (49 Fed. Rep_ 598.) SJta,tewent by SWAN. D\st*tJudge: .' . Thjs is an' action onth,ecmse,coIXlmenced by att!tchment in the circuitcourt of Hamilton coun'ty,. TeilD.· for the ejection of Mrs. J. R. Bennett"
,.1
"',
.'. . . . . .
NEW YORK, L. E.
&;
W. RY. CO. ".BENNETT.
497
one of the defendants in error, from the passenger train of the railway company, en route from Cincinnati to New York. The action sounds in tort, and the declaration claims damages for the mortification inciremoval from the train, and for an alleged false ardent to the rest and imprisonment qf the female plaintiff at Dayton, Ohio, as part of the wrong and injury attending her expulsion. Upon the petition and bond of the plaintiff in error the case was removed to the circuit court of the United States for the southern division of the eastern district of Tennessee. It was there tried, and a verdict for 81,500 rendered for the plaintiff, 'Upon which judgment was subsequently entered. From that judgm8nt the defendant below took this writ of error, and the case is here for review on exceptions duly taken. Defendant pleaded ., notguilty." The material facts involved are in the main condensed from the testimony of the plaintiff Hattie A. Bennett, and her husband, who joins with her in the action. Mrs. Bennett detliring to go to Binghamton, N. Y., with her two infant children, her husband applied for and purchased for her from the agent of the Cincinnati Southern Railroad, in August, 1890, at Chattanooga, Tenn.; a limited ticket.to New York, paying therefor $2Q. The ticket was composed of three coupons,-one for passage to Cincinnati, one to Dayton, and the third thence to New York,-and on each coupon 'Yere printed the figures and letters "2nd," indicating the clasBof the ticket. This designation and notice was also printed in the body of the ticket, as one of the terms and limitations of the contract. The ticket, except the first coupon, is as follows: "TICKET;" QUEEN AND CRESCENT ROUnt. ONE PASSAGE OF CLASS INDICATED TO POINT ON
N. Y., LAKE ERIE, & WESTERN R. B. BETWEEN PUNCH MARKS.
On Coupons attached, when Officially Stamped, subject to the following Contract. 1st. In selling this Ticket and cheqking Baggage hereon, this Company acts only as Agent and is not responsible beyond its own line. 2nd. This Ticket is subject to the STOP-OVER regulations of the line over which it reads. Brd. It is VOID 'for passage if any alterations or erasures are made hereon, or if more than one date is canceled. 4th. The UNPUNCHED FIGURE on the Coupons of this Ticket indicates its Class. 5th. This Ticket is good until used, unless limited by stamp or written indorsement or cancelled by punch in the margin of Contract. 6th. IF LIMITED as fOl" time, this Ticket will be void after midnip:ht of date cancelled by" L tl puuch in margin hereof and is subject to the exchange either in whole or in part at any point on the route for a continuous Passage Ticket or Check. 7th. Wben this Ticket is signed below by the p1,lrchaser, it is NOT TRANSFERABLE, and if presented by any othel' person than the original holder it will be taken up and full fare collected. The holder wlll write his (or her) signature when required to do so by Conductors or Agents.
v.50F.no.7-·32
498
,,'f
,.' $tJ1;' T!oket is,110twltnessed by A:gent no signature is required by thel'ur. chaser. " " ", . ' / ' ' . ' ,':':. 9th. of the compp,nlea on, this ',):'icket,ls llm1tlld, to 'Wear'in'g appsrel notexoeeding' $lOCHri value. '. , ', ' ' fq'o 'Agent 'or empI9ye has l!o#er to Imodlf,t' this Contraot 111 any plU'tioular. ','J' ',I,' : D; G. EDWARDS, Gen. Pass. & Ticket Agent.'
uri
:,
':
,I hereby: agree to all, the OOl\ditions of tblf above oontract, ; ;c!': '
·· ·· Wl·b.. .·
-'r
',.
i
'
;
, ,, ········tI ·· d
, .· ··
"
:
,
_·· ········ ·········
Purchaser. ··· _
·········· _ ···'"
_
..
Il!I!USD BY
QUEEN AND CRESCE;NT ROUTH, R. Y.L.E;'4\W.R.R.(VI8.'SAlamanCl).) B C DAYTON '1'0 BS'1'WSSN PUNOH
LIMITED
L
,-AU_,
PUNCHED.
! 1 OD ...n d_ltlOb_8nBme... ___ ....;,.Co ... dID_c,..o,..nt"'r_Bc_t_._I ""! i A81
ONE PASSAGE.'
II !Hl
PUDObe4
I-------.,...,---:-,-.-,..,--Il;l Via Q&C, NYLE&'+.
'IIW GOOD "
IF DIOTAoUn,' l
",,,
IcI.
I8Sl1JU) llY QUEEN
AND
CRESCEN'i' 'ROUTE.
2d
rt: 'to LAKE
E:RIE &
CINCINNATI TO ,DA,YTON.
I ,
On .1.,81
nBJ!led In ONE PASSAGH·.i : lI'i:l'r'MOD IF DETAomib;"
L PUNCHED.
,.'
,i
NEW YOJtK, L. E. &: W. RY. CO. tl. BENNETT.
that the price of a first-class ti9ket from Chattanooga to New York on the train she took was some six or eight dollars more, and that.J. R.Bennett knew that fact, though he testified that the one purchased "was just as good to him as if he had paid $40 for it, and that he had traveled on the same ticket, [i. of the same class,] and never had any trouble." Mrs. Bennett took the Cincinnati Southern train at Chattanooga, August 10, 1890, and reached Cincinnati at 7 A. hours late for the connecting train,-and there waited until 6:25 P. M., when, asahe testifies, aticket agent told her the New York train left. She also says that she took her ticket to a baggage master, to see that her baggage was put on the train, and he told her she would take the 6:25 P. M. train to New York, which was a first-class train. She took that train, and gives this version of the occurrences for which she sues:
e.,
"When the conductor came for tickets. the first thing he said tome, hesay8: 'What are Y,011 on this train for?' I says: -Why, what is the trouble?' He says: 'Thisis not your tr<1in. This train goes right through to New York.' I said: -Did it? Well, what is the truuble?' He savs: 'Your ticket does not call for this train. You must get off at Dayton, or I'll put you off.' - Well,' I says. I don't see why I should be put off this train if the train is York.' I tiid not know of any troublt'. and I told the going through to cOJllluctor I would like to know what the trouble was. I did not like to be delayed any longer. I had bet'n delayed through the day; had to wait in Cincinnati thruugh the day. Well. he says: -YOtl get off. You must get off. If you don't I'll put J'ou off. I ought to put you off down in the country.' He says: -Why did you not show the ticket at the train?' I StiYs: -I did.' He says: 'You did not.' I says: '1 tuok it to the ticket agent, and I have proof of it.' He says: 'Well, gIve it to me.' And after examining the ticket he took off a portion of the ticket and then gave me this little white ti(·ket. I bad two small children wilh me, and of course hated to get off at Dayton. I can't remember just what took place there, the excitement was too nluch for me. He (the conductor) said be would take me off anyway. and then he says: 'We will see that you get on the next train all right,'-that was going out betwpen eleven and one o'clock that Between one and two o'clock that night he came in with a policeman, and said: -Your train is due, you must go and get your children on iJoa1'd.' Then I tried to have him know, and shook in)' bead. that, I could not, tllat I did not want to go any further. I was lying tbt:'te, and 1 could not speak very well; I bad sllcb a bad Spell; and I did not' like to go any further. I felt very bad, and there was nobody to meet me when I got to New York. and just being in the condition I was, I was going there for my healtb, I thought if I got any worse. I had bettt'r go back home. Then he seemed to be out ofpatil'nce, and says: '1 would like to kuow what yOll al'e going to do. You can't stay here in the You have not Kat any monpy.' I motioned to blm to hold down, so I could whisper. a'nd I saJ's: -You telegraph to my husband. I knuw he will aill me.' He says: ·1 know what I'll do. I'll send for the patrol wagon, and we will take you to the huspital.'"
She was subsequently assisterl to an hotel near the depot, where she was propE(rly caren for until noon of the next day, when she returned horne, where,'she had a attack of prostration. She was asked: '
500
FEbERAL REPO'RTER,
vol.
.
c"Question.Yon saytM only thing the conductor said about your ticket wall that'it did not call for that train? Answer. That is what he said. He said I had Hobusinesll on that train."
On cross-examination' she admitted that the day the policeman at the depot, finding she had not enough money to go back home, solicited the balance, and turned it over to her; that her baggage was checked at Centra1.Depot at Chattanooga for the whole route; that before the train left the conduct()r told her that her ticket did not call for that train, and that the next train, for, which it was valid, would arrive about, midnight, but she preferred wait until she felt better or go back . ·',lJifestion. What wrong bad been done to you up to that time? Answer. I could n6t tell you how much wrong. r was wronged throngh my feelings. I think I was very much wronged. [She does not know how she got to the ladies' ,waiting room, but supposes she was led there by the conductor.] Q. If thel'e was:anytbing else that was done to you I will be very much obliged if you williell the jury what it WIlS. A. I don't kn.ow of anything. Q. You haveoalready stated what the conuuctor said ,to you when he came to take up your ticket, between Cincinnati and he told you you ought not to be on that train. State whether,-what his manner was, whether it was rough and"hllrsh. or it was kind and .gentle. A. It was very rough. So much so that is what scared me most. If he had spoke pleasant to me it would havecbeen so much better. lIe spoke up in such a commanding way." that "no other instllt or was o,(fered by anyone else except tlle conductor." There is no evidence that plaintiff was arrested or imprisoned! or was subjected to any expense while at Dayton. The foregoing states all that is material of the plaintiff's testimony relevant tothe conduct of the conductor and the circumstances of her expulsiol1utDayton. 'The plaintiff was ejected from one ofthe cars of a limited train, upon which, under the regulations of the pany., otlly passengers having first-class tickets were allowed to ride. The testimony of the conductor,· who is an employe of the Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad, does not vary essentially from that of the passenger, except that he denied all ungentlemanly conduct. The record showstha.t the plaintiff, with h.er children, were escorted by the conductor Bnd station officer into a safe, and comfortable waiting room in the railroad statio.raat Dayton, wbich was watched and lighted, where: she remained without molestation, until, at her own request, she was assisted to an hotel, where she was provided with dinner gratuitously, while th'eoffiqer 011, duty at the station went to the depot, and there collectedenOllgh money to pay her return fare to Chattanooga. anll. Frank Sp?J.rlpck, for plaintiff. Thomas H. Cook, for defendant. Before J.t\CKSON, Circuit Judge, and, SAGE and SWAN, District Judges.
to
-'
, i '
District Judge, (after statingthejactsas above.) Under the form ofaction adopted it Was essential to 'rec'overy that the plaintiffs should establish either a breach of defendant's express contract, evidenced b)
NEW YORK, L. E. & W. RY. CO.tl. BENNETT.
501
the ticket, for the carriage of plaintiff to New York, or by competentevidence, that defendant, by its aj:!;ents, conductors, or servants, had violated the implied contract to protect its passengers against insult and violence, which the law attaches to the duties of a common carrier of passengers. It is not contended that the case made by the plaintiff meets the first of these requirements. Plaintiff, through her husband, had applied for and accepted a second-class ticket, which expressed, it is admitted, the contract between the company and herself for her transportation to New York. It was such a ticket as she had been accustomed to purchase for that route. Having accepted it, she was bound by its terms, whether or not she knew or read them. Boylan v. Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 150, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 50; Fonseca v. Steam-Ship Co., 153 Mass. 553, 27 N. E. Rep. 665. It provided among its printed conditions that "no agent or employe has 'power to modify this contract in any particular," and in its body, and upon the margin of each of its constituent coupons, notified the holder of its class and limitations. In the face of these notifications no assurance given plaintiff by the baggage master or the ticket agent at Cincinnati, of whom she claims to have made inquiries, could confer any right of transportation not expressed by the ticket itself, even had those officers been employes of defendant, which is not shown. Boylan v. Railroad Co., supra. As between the conductor and the passenger, the ticket was conclusive evidence of the extent of the latter's right of transportation, and the conductor had no authority to give it any greater effect by permitting plaintiff to travel on that train. Frederick v. Railroad Co., 37 Mich. 342; Htlfford v. Railway Co., 53 Mich. 118, 18 N. W. Rep. 580; Mosher v. Railroad Co., 127 U. S. 390-396, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1324; Boylan v. Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 146-150, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 50. The failure of the train on the Cincinnati Southern Railroad to make connection at Cincinnati with that upon which plaintiff was entitled to travel was not the fault of defendant, nor did it impose any obligation upon it to transport plaintiff on the train from which she was ejected. Her contract gave her no right of passage on that train, as plainlyappears from its terms. No other is pleaded or proved. She was therefore wrong in her refusal to leave, and became thereby technically a trespasser, to whom the railroad company owed only proper' care and -civility until her removal could be lawfully effected. Edwards v. Rail.road Co., 81 Mich. 364, 45 N. W. Rep. 827, and cases cited. We are brought, therefore, to the examination of the incidents preliminary to .and attending her removal from the train, which is the only remaining ground of action. The declaration avers that defendant's conductor was guilty of using" violent, abusive, and rough language towards plainti ff;" that he employed "force and violence" in ejecting her; and, in substance, chargf's that" dflfendant's several wrongs and outrages as aforesaid, [meaning thereby the conductor's language, and the violence used in plaintiff's ejection,] alld* * * the wrongful. cruel, and inhuman treatment of plaintifl'bydefendant, its agents and servants," caused plaintiff's illness,and the permanent injury and disability for which,
REPoaTER, vol..50." suit is brought. "There,is no evidence that any violence was dfferedplaintiff, or any force employed, to effect her removal from the, car to the waiting room at Dayton. . The learned judge who tried the cause declined to direct a verdict for dafendant upon the whole evidence, and submitted to the jury the determination of the question whether the evidence made a proper case for pul!11tive.damages. His rulings on these points were seasonably excepted to, and error is assigned upon them. Without repeating the narrativeof Mrs; Bennett, the substance of which, relative to the manner and incidenuwf her removal from the train, is given above, we are constrained to hold, .that these rulings were erroneous. To warrant the recovery of exemplnry or punitive "there must have been sorrie willful misconduct;,or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences," (Railroad Co. v. Ames, 91 U. S. 495;) or, as it is put in Philadelphia, etc" Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 213,214: "Wbenf>ver tbe injury complainf>d of bas been inflicted maliciously or wantonly, and with circumstances of contu 10 ely or indignity, the jury are not limitell a simplecornpensation for the wrong committed against the lJj/;grieved ,person. Buttbe malice spoken of in this rule is not merely the doing of .an unlawful or injurious act. The worll implies that the act complained of was conceived in the spirit of mischief or of cl'iminal indifference to civil obligations." The later Cllsesare to the same effect. Railroad Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 521, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550-563, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501;. Railroad Co.v. HarriB, 122 U. S. 597-609, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1.286. While it is for the jury, in a proper case, to determine the character of the wrong inflioted,: and the measure of damages to be applied, the evidencemllst justify the court in 811 bmitting to them either or both inquiries as questiqnsof fact., Plaintiff was on the train undf>r an entire misconception of her contract relations to the carrier, and without light. Ofthat tact and its consequences she was fully informed by the conductor. If, in imparting that information, and the performHllce of the duty tohiaemployer which plaiutifl"srefusal to]eave the train, and her failure to pay. the fare, devolved upon him, his language was opprobrious and insulting, or his conduct oppressive and contumelious, the corporation ,is undoubtedly responsible civiliter for the tort. The law. however, is not so unreasonable as to exact from the conduetor of a passenger train, or the master; of a steamship, upon whose vigilance and oompetency the lives and Safety of passengers are dependent, a rigid ob,servance of the formal.umenities of social life, in the necessarily hurried discharge of his varied and important duties.. It requires that he shall with civility, and shall protect passengers from insult demean and violence 11:'om othE'rs. Beyond this it has no standard of conduct, no code of manners. Of nellcssity, his communications with his paspurely of a. business nature. He hall scant time sengers are i,llthe for explanatiol1s;l1onefor discussion or loquacity. The natural effect of hil:! great and urgent responsibilities is to beget a characteristic brev-
ity and bluntness of manner and speech, varying in degree with the of the i,ndividual, often perhaps distemperament and pleasing to the sensitive and inexperienced traveler, yet as far removed from legalc'ensul'e as the demand of a lawful right in, terse phrase. While his own and his employer's interest would be best served by a uniformly complaisant speech and demeaJ;lOr, the mere lack of boill is not insult; nor is his faHure to gauge his address to the sensibilities, temperament, or latent ailQlentsof:Qis passengers an actionable dereliction. When called upon to declare the invalidity of a ticket, or to deny Claim to transportation, or to announce his duty to eject a person who refuses to pay fare, if he uses only the customary plain and positive'diction o(business,his. employer cannot, be mulcted in damages, or legally reprehended for his plain speaking or peremptory manner. RoBeY. Ra.ilroad ev., (N. C.) 11 S. E. Rep. 526. Accepting plaintiff's own· testimony as to what transpired between herself arid the conductor, and laying out of view entirely the latter's version, there is no legal basis for the instruction which permitted the jUry to award exemplary damages against the defendant. There was neither vituperation, epithet, contumely, nor aspersion in the language used by the conductor. It was a plain, matter of fact announcement that under the rules of the company, which left the officer no discretion, he could ,not accept the ticket she tendered for her transportation on that train, and she must leave the car at Dayton, or it would be his duty to remove her. Less than this he could not lawfully have done. More than this he did not do.. There is even no complaint that this was said in a she says of the manner: "It was very rough. So much so that is what scared me most. If he had spoken pleasant, it would have been sa' much better. He spoke in such a commanding way." The concludiugphrase of this eJ(tract from her testimony at once defines the extent of her grievance, and is the severest criticism she makes upqIl the treatment of which she complains·. The legal criterion of the condu'ctor's address and conduct must be found in his language and manqer, not in the plaintiff's opinioJ;l of their propriety, nor the epitliets bywhi6li' she characterizes them. An imperative manner and form ofspeech not actionable. Something more tangible necessary to' sustain au action of this nature, and, a fortinri, than liabiFtytoexemplary Plai,ntiff's was a mortifying experience, and. its (lonsequences are fo' be. regretted, but they must be charged to her own negligence in taking the wrong train, and her refusal to com ply with the lawful demand 'ofthe conductor, which necessitated and justified her ejection, the circumstances and place of which are not open to legal criticism.. For the error pointed out in the instruction as to the liability of defendant to exemplary damages, and for the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted. It.is unnecessary to decide, the other questions preljentedpy the bill of exceptions. Judgment reversed, with costs, and a venue' de nOvo ordered. ' · .
Is
Bm'OBTEB,
vol. 50. eI aL
UNITED STATES ". STEENERSON
(CwCUCt Own oj .Appeal8, Eighth Circuit. May 16, 1899.)
No. 1i7.
t.
lI'OB TnIB... When the ownership of ,logs lIo11f!gecHo have been out on land belonging to the depends Up!>n ,the ownel'!!hlp of the land,the title to the land may be lnvesttgated and deterDllned in an action of repleVin hrought by the United StllteB to recoYel1 logs., , ,
The commissi,pner of the general land otllce, by virtue of the general power of sup&l'vis!9bvested in him over the acts ,of the register and receiver of the locallal:ld ofllpes, milo' cancel a pre-eJDption entrJ',.and the finaleertiftcate issued to tbe preemptor, on the ground that the entry fraudulently made and void' under Rev. St. U. 8.12262. "','
was
&. BAMIl-VALIDITY-COLLATnAL ATTAOK.
Whellsuch cancellation has been made the pre-emptor haa no such final adjudi. cation in lHa,faVor in tl:is'cmifidlte isslied'by the local oftlces as that his right to 'the lanll: can DOt. be or tbat the invalidity Of the certificate be adjlldicated in a bro,ugb,t for thatpurvose. 'And tnerefore,in an action Of replevin by,the United States for logs cut on public land!"whtch 4efendant ,claims by virtue ,of the can<;eled entry and certificates, the'United states is entitlild't.o introduce evidenee ofsuchcaneellation, and that the etltry, 'Was fraudu,len,t1 r," made by the,pre.eJDPtor for the purpose of enabling strip tbe land of , OJ' ENi:'Ry-:"EvIDIlNCB':'-'RIlPLEVIN.' , , '
,.
In, the ,Circuit Court of' the, lJttited States for the District of Minnesota::. '" . , ReplevIn b;y the StateS against Christopher Steenerson and others, copart.ners as the, Clear Water Land & Logging COmpany" Hugh Thompson, :Marcus Johnson,for certain logs. ' There was judgment ,Judgment reversed.
in error. . .
Fran'k'B., Kellogg, and a.. A.. Severance, for defendanta ' .. . Before >(JA,LDWELL, Circuit Judge, and SHIRAS,District Judge.
S1I1RM3,J)istrlct Judge. " the for a proper understanding of by record' in this case are as follows: In SepteIllper, 1883, made a pre-emption entry of the S. W. t ofsection 33, township,J47 range 38 W., situated in Beltramicount;y, :Milln. 24J1884, be filed a declaratory statement of pre-emption, o.n,a on 1884,made tinar proof of entry, includIng the payments,aud received a certificate from the receivero,f the land'office at CrooJrston, Minn., showing payment in f\l,¥ for the Jand qamed. On the the was issued to hiIQ. Hanson "executed ,11> 'deed of the land to Andrew Steenerson, who 'was a pt1-rtnt1r)nthe defendant firm,known as the "CIE\ar Water Land ,That company, ?ul'ing 1885-86, la9d named abont 754,000 feet of logs, and placed them cut from in the waters of the Clear Water rh;er.On the 29th of April, 1886, the United States brought the present action in the United States circuit for the district of Minnesota to recover possession of said logs, a.
the.