174 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



been denied a lien. l The same principles would apply to 

 the cutting or hauling of logs, and a lien has even been 

 given for the loss of a laborer's time through the fault of the 

 owner of the logs. 2 But except as to services already performed 

 a lien does not exist where an owner of timber defaults on 

 his contract to employ another. 3 In several states a hen 

 is specifically given by statute to cooks in logging and driv- 

 ing camps, 4 but irrespective of these provisions, cooks, 5 

 blacksmiths, 6 and other assistants 7 who perform ser- 

 vices essentially incidental to the operations covered by a 

 statute should be afforded the protection of a hen. A lien 

 has been allowed to one who performed services in the con- 

 struction of a road upon which logs were to be transported 8 

 and in the blasting of rocks which would prevent or impede 

 the passage of logs in a river, 9 but the performance of ser- 

 vice in connection with a road not actually used as an inci- 

 dent to the logging operation 10 or upon a railroad which was 

 to be used in a general way for the transportation of other 

 timber as well as that then being cut n has been held to give 

 no lien. The same principles have been applied as to ser- 

 vices upon a mill plant, by affording a lien to one who per- 

 formed services in repair work at irregular intervals as an 

 incident to the operation of the mill, 12 but denying one 

 for services in the construction, improvement or permanent 

 repair of a sawmill. 13 A statute giving a lien for personal 

 services has been held not to cover the services of a team 

 used by the one claiming the lien, 14 but if the statute is not 



1. Lord v. Woodward, 42 Me. 497. 



2. McCrilUs v. Wilson, 34 Me. 286, 56 Am. Dec. 655. See Cross v. Dore, 20 Wash. 



121. 



3. Kennedy v. South Shore Lbr. Co. 102 Wis. 284, 78 N. W. 567. 



4. Oregon Laws, 1910, Lord, sec. 7461; Wash. Codes & St. 1910, Rem. & Bal., sec 



1162; Wis. St. 1913, sec. 3341. 



5. Breault v. Archambault, 64 Minn. 420, 67 N. W. 348, 58 Am. St. Rep. 545; 



Winslow v. Urquhart, 39 "Wis. 260; Young v. French, 35 Wis. 111. But see 

 Bradford v. Underwood Lbr. Co., 80 Wis. 50, 48 N. W. 1105. (Contract for 

 board.) 



6. Breault v. Archambault, 64 Minn. 420. 



7. Carpenter v. McDonald and theMcCord Lbr. Co., 107 Wis. 611,617, 83 N. W. 764. 



8. Proulx v. Stetson Etc. Mill Co., 6 Wash. 478, 33 Pac. 1067. 



9. Duggan v. Washougal Land Etc. Co., 10 Wash. 84, 38 Pac. 856. 



10. Duggan v. Washougal Land Etc. Co., 10 Wash. 84, 38 Pac. 856. 



11. Carpenter v. McDonald and the McCord Lbr. Co., 107 Wis. 611, 83 N. W. 764. 



12. Engi v. Hardell, 100 Wis. 407, 100 N. W. 1046. 



13. Kendall v. Hyues Lbr. Co., 96 Wis. 659. 71 N. W. 1039; Glover v. Hynes Lbr. Co., 



94 Wis. 457. 



14. Coburn v. Kerswell, 35 Me. 126; McCrillis v. Wilson, 34 Me. 286, 56 Am. Dec 



655. But see Hale v. Brown, 59 N. H. 551, 47 Am. Rep. 224. 



