STATUTORY LIENS 171 



sive, 1 while others apply only to one or two of the classes of 

 service named above. These statutes are sustained by the 

 courts. 2 The lien will be given preference over nearly all 

 claims and be satisfied out of any part of the material on 

 which the labor or service was expended. 3 Under such 

 statutes legal possession at the time of the performance of 

 the service is unnecessary, 4 but attachment of the timber 

 must be made before the lien can be enforced. 5 As the 

 statutes are remedial they have been construed liberally in 

 favor of those for whose benefit they were enacted. 6 Al- 

 though a lien statute will not apply to a contract entered 



(Footnote 7 concluded from preceding page) 

 Nev. Rev. Stats. 1912, sec. 2230 (cutting) ; cf. sec. 1440 (Ref. to act Mar. 3, 1866, 



p. 198, which is quoted in Gen. St. 1885, sec. 1064-1071, giving lien for 



driving logs.) 



Ore. Laws of 1910, Lord, sec. 7461-7464. 

 Vt. Cf. Public Statutes 1906, sec. 2654-2656. 



Wash. Codes & Statutes, 1910, Rem. & Bal., sec. 1162-1181 (Laws 1877, p. 217.) 

 Wis. Statutes 1913, sec. 3329; see also sec. 3337-3342 b. 

 Wyo. Compiled Statutes, 1910, Mullen, sec. 3767-3768. 



1. See Lawler Bankruptcy Case, 110 Fed. 135 (Holding a traveling salesman for a 



lumber company had a lien for his services.) Carver v. Bagley, 79 Minn. 114, 81 

 N. W. 757 (In favor subcontractors as well as contractors.) 



2. Spofford v. True, 33 Me. 283, 54 Am. Dec. 621; Sullivan v. Hall, 86 Mich. 7; 



Craddock v. Dwight, 85 Mich. 587; Reilly v. Stephenson, 62 Mich. 509, 29 

 N. W. 99; Shaw v. Bradley, 59 Mich. 199, 26 N. W. 331; Hoffa v. Person, 1 Pa. 

 Supr. Ct. 357; Fitch v. Applegate (Wash.) 64 Pac. 147; Winslow v. Urquhart, 

 39 Wis. 260; Munger v. Lenroot, 32 Wis. 541; Akers v. Lord, 67 Wash. 179, 121 

 Pac. 51. But see Bradley v. Cassels, 117 Ga. 517, 42 S. E. 857; Jacobs v. 

 Knapp, 50 N. H. 71; Quimby v. Hazen, 54 Vt. 132; Townsend Sav. Bank v. 

 Epping, 24 Fed. Gas. No. 14, 120, 3 Woods 390. 



3. Austill v. Hieronymus, 117 Ala. 620, 23 So. 660; Akeley v. Mississippi, etc. Boom 



Co. 64 Minn. 108, 67 N. W. 208, (Waived lien) ; Martin v. Wakefleld, 42 Minn. 

 176, 43 N. W. 966, 6 L. R. A. 362; Proulx v. Stetson etc. Mill Co., 6 Wash. 478, 

 33 Pac. 1067; Blonde v. Menominee Bay Shore Lbr. Co., 106 Wis. 540, 82 N. W. 

 552; De Morris v. Wilbur Lbr. Co. 98 Wis. 465, 74 N. W. 105. 



4. Quimby v. Hazen, 54 Vt. 132. 



5. Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 126, 19 N. W. 647. 



But see, Waterson v. Getchell, 5 Me. 435, 17 Am. Dec. 251 (Actual notice) and 

 Steele v. Schricker, 55 Wis. 134, 12 N. W. 396 (Constructive notice), holding 

 that a purchaser of logs with notice of the contract under which they were cut 

 takes the logs subject to a lien for the cutting. 



6. Davis v. Cox, 13 Ga. App. 509, 79 S. E. 383 (No Lien on trees) ; Lbr. Co. v. Hales, 



11 Ga. App. 569, 75 S. E. 898; Haralson v. Speer, 1 Ga. App. 573, 58 S. E. 142. 

 Murphy v. McGough, 105 Ga. 816, 31 S. E. 757 (lien to mill owner); Wiggins 

 v. Houghton, 89 Mich. 468, 50 N. W. 1005; Carver v. Bagley, 79 Minn. 114, 81 

 N. W. 757; Breault v. Archambault, 64 Minn. 420, 67 N. W. 348; 58 Am. St. 

 Rep. 545; Hopkins v. Rays, 68 N. H. 164; Robins v. Paulson, 30 Wash. 459, 

 70 Pac. 1113; Kendall v. Hynes Lbr. Co.. 96 Wis. 659, 71 N. W. 1039; Johnson 

 v. Iron Belt Min. Co., 78 Wis. 159, 47 N. W. 363; Jacubeck v. Hewitt, 61 Wis. 

 96; Collins v. Cowan, 52 Wis. 634; Kollock v. Parcher, 52 Wis. 393, 9 N. W. 

 67; Winslow v. Urquhart, 39 Wis. 260. But see Bierly v. Royse, 25 Ind. Appl. 

 202, 57 N. E. 939; Lord v. Woodward, 42 Me. 497; Clark v. Adams, 33 Mich. 

 159; Dallaire v. Gauthier, 24 Can. Sup. Ct. 495. See also Rowley v. Conklin, 

 89 Minn. 172, 94 N. W. 548 (holding such a law not applicable to public prop- 

 erty), and Spalding Lbr. Co. v. Brown, (111.) 49 N. E. 725 (statute covering 

 public property.) Hutchins v. Blaisdell, 106 Me. 92, 75 Atl. 291; Becherl v. 

 Pluchak (Mich.) 137 N. W. 101 ; Sumpter v. Burnham, 51 Wash. 599,99 Pac. 752 



