LIENS UPON TIMBER PRODUCTS 169 



for all lumber sawn, or for the balance due, may ordinarily 

 be enforced against any portion of the logs or lumber, re- 

 maining in the possession of the one operating the mill. l 

 However, under an agreement in New York by which one 

 party was to deliver logs to another to be sawn and the 

 latter was to retain one-half of the lumber for the sawing, it 

 was held that the owner of the logs retained possession of all 

 logs until all were manufactured into lumber, and that he 

 might maintain trover for the value of all the logs and 

 lumber, if the sawyer converted any part of the lumber 

 before he had fully performed his contract. 2 Raftsmen 

 who receive logs or lumber for the purpose of floating the 

 same to market have been held to have a common law hen 

 on the goods received for the value of the services per- 

 formed. 3 The same principal should be applied when an 

 individual or a company receives loose logs under a con- 

 tract for floating them to market. 4 



A common law hen is dependent upon possession, and the 

 ordinary contracts providing for the cutting and hauling of 

 timber from land owned by another, and many of those for 

 the driving of logs, do not give the one performing such 

 services the possession essential to the maintenance of a 

 common law lien, 5 nor does the one furnishing money ad- 

 vances or supplies for the cutting of timber have a Hen on 

 the logs in the absence of a statute or a specific agreement 

 therefor. 6 One who had cut timber from the land of 

 another and hauled the logs to his own mill for sawing was 

 held to have a lien for his labor, both upon the lumber 

 sawed and on the logs not yet manufactured, 7 however 



1. Holderman v. Manier, 104 Ind. 118; Partridge v. Dartmouth College, 5 N. H. 286; 



Morgan v. Congdon, 4 N. Y. 552. 



2. Pierce v. Schenck, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 28. See Wisconsin Statutes, 1913; sec. 4447 im- 



posing a penalty for the non-delivery of lumber sawn on shares. 



3. Iron etc. Co. v. Nester, 147 Mich. 599, 111 N. W. 177; Farrington v. Meek, 30 



Mo. 578, 77 Am. Dec. 627; Mercantile etc. Co. v. Galloway, 156 Fed. 504. 



4. Jacobs v. Knapp, 50 N. H. 71. 



5. Cincinnati Cooperage Co. v. Woodyard (Ky.) 54 S. W. 831; Oakes v. Moore, 24 



Me. 214, 41 Am. Dec. 379; Haughton v. Busch, 101 Mich. 267, 59 N. W. 621, 

 Gamble v. Gates, 97 Mich. 465, 56 N. W. 855; O'Clair v. Hale, 35 N. Y. Appl. 

 Div. 77, 54 N. Y. Suppl. 388 (Aff'm'g 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 31, 54 N. Y. Suppl. 386) ; 

 Fitzgerald v. Elliott, 162 Pa. St. 118, 29 Atl. 346, 42 Am. St. Rep. 812. Com- 

 pare: Anderson v. Tingley (Wash.) 64 Pac. 747 (Possession surrendered by 

 contract and lien lost.) 



But see Farrington v. Meek, 30 Mo. 578, 77 Am. Dec. 627; Burgett v. Bissell, 14 

 Barb. (N. Y.) 638; Ottawa Bank v. Bingham, 8 Quebec Q. B. 359. 



6. Andrew v. Jenkins, 39 Wis. 476; cf. Bogard v. Tyler (Ky.) 55 S. W. 709. 



7. Palmer v. Tucker, 45 Me. 316. See also Germain v. Central Lbr. Co., 116 Mich. 



245, 74 N. W. 644; Hughes v. Tanner, 96 Mich. 113, 55 N. W. 661. 



