CLASSES OF LIEN SERVICE 173 



page bought by the mill owner. l However, in certain 

 states a hen upon a mill or manufactured product for the 

 purchase price of stumpage is specifically given by statute. 2 



A statute giving a hen for the "cutting, skidding and haul- 

 ing" of logs has been held to cover chopping, swamping and 

 loading, 3 and one which gave a lien for the "cutting" of 

 timber was construed to afford a lien for all the labor of one 

 who cut, peeled and piled poplar timber for pulp purposes. ' 

 In Maine a lien statute for the cutting of logs and one for the 

 cutting of cordwood were held to merge so as to give a 

 single remedy to one cutting both timber and cordwood. 5 

 One furnishing shingle bands was afforded the protection of a 

 statute giving a lien for services in connection with the 

 manufacture of shingles. G On the other hand a statute 

 providing a lien for services in the manufacture of lumber 

 was held not to cover the hauling of the manufactured 

 timber away from a mill ; 7 and a statute which declares the 

 hen available while the lumber is at the mill or in the pos- 

 session of the manufacturer is not available after the 

 lumber is removed from the mill. s 



A lien for services in connection with the driving of logs 

 covers all essential parts of the work, y including the time 

 devoted to the obtaining of the necessary equipment and 

 caring for it during the drive and at the close, 10 but one who 

 assisted another in a joint drive of their respective logs has 



1. Kay v. Schmidt. 7 Oa. App. 380, 06 S. E. 10:55, Stanley v. Livingston. 9 Ga. App. 



52:5; 71 S. E. 878; Loud v. Pritchett. 104 Oa. 048. :50 S. 10. S7S. Giles v. Gano, 

 102 Ga. 59.'5, 27 S. K. 7:50. 



2. Ala. Civil Code 1007, sec. 4814-4817 (Act. Dec. 17, 1894, Laws of 1894. p. 250.) 



Interpretation. Thornton v. Dwight, 1:57 Ala. 211, 34 So. 382: Austin v. 

 Hicronynius, 1 17 Ala. 020, 2:5 So. 020. Cf. May V. Williams (Ky.) 00 S. W. 525 

 Wash. Codes & St. 1910, Sue. 1104, (Doyle v. McLeod. 4 Wash. 7:52. Interpre- 

 tation; 



3. Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Runnels, 77 Mich. 104. 4:5 X. \V. 1OOO. 



4. J5ondeur v. Le Bourne, 79 Mo. 21, 7 Atl. 814. Cf. Sands, v. Sands. 74 Me. 2:59; 



Hadlock v. Shimiway, 11 Wash. 090. 



And see Fisher v. Cone Lbr. Co. 49 Ore. 277, 89 1'ac. 7:57 (Holding lien not de- 

 stroyed by manufacture into lumber.) 



5. Ouelette v. Pluir, 'Me.) 44 Atl. 010. Cf. Anderson v. K. K. Co. 25 Ida. 4:5:5, 1.38 



1'ac. 12:5 (Ties included in "timber.") 

 0. Mass v. Williams. 7:5 Mich. 208, 41 N T . W. 229. 



7. Villenuve v. Sines. 92 Mich. 550, 52 N. W r . 1007. Cf. Ryan v. C.uilfoil, 1:5 Wash. 



37:5; Winsor v. Johnson, 5 Wash. 429, 152 I'ae.. 215. Hut see Menery v. Uaekus, 

 107 Mich. 1529 (Employed on timber operation and farm). 



8. Judge v. Bay Mill Co., 18 W r ash. 209; Smartwood v. Red Star Shingle Co., 13 



Wash. 1549; Campbell v. Sterling Mfg. Co. 11 Wqsn. 204. 



9. East Hoquiam Doom Etc. Co. v. Neeson, 20 Wast. 142.|54 Pac. 1001; Yellow 



River Imp. Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 21, 49 N. W. 971. 

 10. Minton v. Underwood Lbr. Co., 79 Wis. 640, 48 N. W. 857. 



