Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/300

 MO. RIV. PKT. CO. V. H. & ST. J. B. 00. 293 �plained of, and that no attempt was made by defendant to raise or remove them, I am clearly of the opinion that the defendant was responsible for any injury resulting from their presence in the channel at the time plaintiff's vessel was injured. �6. Counsel for defendant also insists that the court erred in that part of the charge to the jury which refers to the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plain- tiff. The language of the court upon this subject is as fol- lows: �"While the defendant company were under no legal obliga- tion to keep pontoons from the bridge pier to the banks of the river, as testified to, yet if for any reason they kept them there, and they were sunk by jce or otherwise, the company ■was bound to remove them ; and if it failed to do so, and a change of carrent was caused by this neglect, and the plain- tiff's boat was injured in consequence of such change, you are justified in finding for plaintiff, unless unskilfulness or neglect on the part of plaintiff in handling his boat caused or contrib- uted to the collision." �This, certainly, left to the jury f ully and fairly the question of contributory negligence. A more labored discussion of that subject cauld hardly have madeclearer the true rule upon the subject. �7. It is insigted that it was necessary for plaintiff to prove notice to abate the alleged nuisance. There was some proof tending to show that notice was given to the agent of defend- ant having charge of the bridge; but whether notice to the agent, in this case, was notice to the principal, is a question upon which counsel differ. I do not think it necessary to consider that question, for the reason that, in my opinion, no notice was required, The rule requiring notice to abate, before an action for damages can be maintained, does not apply to the case of an obstruction to a navigable river or other public highway. It applies only to cases where the com- plaint is against the grantee of land on which a previous owner has erected a nuisance. He who erects a nuisance, even on his own land, is not entitled to notice. Ray v. Sel- ����