Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/301

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

294 FEDERAL REPORTER. �lers, 1 Dut. 254; Slight v. Gutzlaff, 35 Wis. 675; Cochocton v. B Go. 51 N. Y. 573. �But the person who allows the continuance in its original state of a nuisance on his own land, erected there by his grantor, is entitled to notice. Woodman v. Tufts, 9 N. H. 91; Snow v. Cowles, 22 N. H. 296; Johnson v. Lewis, 13 Coxiu. 303. �For full discussion of the whole subject and citation of authorities, see Plumb v. Harper, 14 American Decisions, 333, 338, �It is entirely clear that the doctrine of notice bas no appli- cation to the present case. �8. It is insisted that the charge of the court as to the measure of damages was erroneous. The charge upon this point is as foUows : �"Eegarding the rule of damages, in case you find for plaintiff, you are instructed to allow the amount shown to have been paid by plaintifï for repaira, together with 6 per cent, interest from the day of the beginning of the suit, whicb was on the sixteenth day of August, 1876 ; and for such a rea- Bonable amount of cliarter rent, during the time the boat was repairing, as you may deem right under the testimony. �To this charge, in itself considered, no exception can be taken. But counsel insist that ail the -witneases testified that they arrived at the charter value from the eamings of like boats in the same trade, it not being shown that any boats on the Missouri river were being chartered, or that there was any charter value established on that river. �The true rule of damages in such cases is that the plain- tiff shall recover the loss necessarily incurred in repairing the injured vessel, and also for the use of the boat during the time necessary to make the repairs and fit her for business. �Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How. 110; The Baltimore, 8 Wall. 387; The Oayuga, 14 Wall. 278. �The evidence objected to seems to have been clearly admis- sible for the purpose of fixing the amount of plaintiff's dam- ages, within this rule. If no boats were being chartered on the Missouri river, and therefore no established charter valuo ����