172 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



into before its passage, l it has been held that an amend- 

 ment as to the time or manner of enforcement of a hen does 

 apply to liens which arose before the enactment of such 

 provisions. 2 Some state statutes for this class of liens 

 specifically authorize assignment, 3 but it has been held 

 that a lien is assignable even where the statute does not so 

 provide, 4 especially if the hen has been perfected by the re- 

 quired filing of notice. 5 



127. Classes of Service Covered by Statutes. 



Whether a hen for any particular work in connection with 

 the logging and manufacture of timber can be sustained 

 will depend largely upon the wording of the statute. Ex- 

 cept in the few states in which there is a comprehensive 

 statute, only special services are protected, and in many 

 states there are statutory liens which are restricted to the 

 cutting and delivering of logs and other distinct provisions 

 as to the manufacture of logs into lumber and other pro- 

 ducts. In some states a special lien on the logs is given one 

 who furnishes money or supplies for the cutting, hauling or 

 driving of logs; 6 and in others a lien on a sawmill or its pro- 

 duets is given one who furnishes timber, logs or provisions 

 for the operation of the mill. 7 Statutes giving a hen on a 

 sawmill for timber and supplies furnished have been held 

 not to comprehend the furnishing of money, machinery and 

 labor, 8 nor to afford a lien for the purchase price of stum- 



1. Shuffleton v. Hill, 62 Cal. 483; Bass v. Williams, 73 Mich. 208. 41 X. W. 229. 



2. Palmer v. Tucker, 45 Me. 31G; McQuester v. Morrill. 12 Wash. 335. 41 Pac. 56; 



Paine v. Gill, 13 Wis. 561. But see Gapneau v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 8 Wash. 

 467 (Lien right not lost by repeal). 



3. See Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 126, 19 N. \V. 647; Dirimple v. McDonald 



and Dells Lbr. Co., 101 Wis. 509, 78 N. W. 182. Cf. Bernhart v. Rice, 9s \\ i-. 

 578, 74 N. W. 370; Kline v. Comstock, 67 Wis. 473, 30 X. W. 920: Tc\vks- 

 bury v. Bronson, 48 Wis. 581, 4 X. W. 749. 



4. Phillips v. Vose, 81 Me. 134, 16 Atl. 463; Murphy v. Adams. 71 Me. 113, 36 Am. 



Rep. 299; contra Tewksbury v. Bronson, 48 Wis. 581, 4 X. W. 749. 



5. Mulholland v. Ault (Wash. 1892), 32 Pac. 294; Casey v. Ault, 4 Wash. 1(17. _". 



Pac. 1048; Dexter v. Sparkman, 2 Wash. 165. 25 Pac. 1070. 



6. Abraham v. Agnew, 83 Wis. 246; Bradford v. Underwood Lbr. Co., 80 Wis. 50, 



48 N. W. 1105: Garland v. Hickey, 75 Wis. 17S: Patten v. Xorthwestern Lbr. 

 Co., 73 Wis. 233, 41 N. W. 82; Stacy v. Bryant, 73 Wis. 14, 40 X. W. 632: 

 Kollock v. Parcher. 52 Wis. 393. 



7. Annotated Statutes of Georgia, 1914, Parks, sec. 3358. 



8. Filer Etc. Co. v. Empire Lbr. Co. 91 Ga. 657, 18 S. E. 359; Balkcom v. Empire 



Lbr. Co. 91 Ga. 651. 17 S. E. 1020. 44 Am. St. Rep. 58; Empire Mill Co. v. 

 Kiser, 91 Ga. 643, 17 S. E. 972: Dart v. Mayhew, 60 Ga. 104; Cypress Shingle 

 Etc. Co. v. Lorio, 46 La. Ann. 441: In re Gosch 121 Fed. 604. 



