PERSONS ENTITLED TO LIENS 175 



thus restricted it will cover the services of a team. x The 

 lien will exist even though the team is driven by a servant 

 of the one making the contract, 2 or the team, which is 

 driven by the one claiming the hen, is in his possession under 

 a contract of hiring or of purchase, 3 but under a statute 

 giving a hen for services performed in the cutting and haul- 

 ing of timber there will be no hen to the owner for the ser- 

 vices of a team which is driven by another under a contract 

 of hiring, even though such contract expressly contemplates 

 the use of the team in the logging operation. 4 



128. Persons Entitled to Statutory Liens. Wheth- 

 er a person performing a particular service in connection 

 with the production of lumber or other timber products is 

 entitled to the protection of a hen upon the product or upon 

 the plant or equipment will depend largely upon the terms 

 of the statute in the jurisdiction where the case arises. In 

 many states the view is taken that a hen for services com- 

 prehends only physical labor of men or animals working for 

 specified wages, either by time or by the piece, under the 

 direction of an employer. 5 Under such a construction 

 the hen has been denied to one acting as a foreman or 

 sealer, 6 but a contrary view has been taken in other 

 states, 7 and in several states a statute specifically affords 

 a lien for scaling, 8 or for the services of servants. 9 Many 

 statutes have been held not to afford a hen to a contractor 



1. Hogan v. Gushing, 49 Wis. 169, 5 N. W. 490; See Klondike Lbr. Co. v. Williams, 



71 Ark. 334, 75 S. W. 854; Martin v. Wakefleld, 42 Minn. 176. 43 N. W. 966 

 6 L. R. A. 362. 



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



Martin v. Wakefleld, 42 Minn. 176. 



3. Kelley v. Kelley, 77 Me. 135. 



4. McMullin v. McMullin, 92 Me. 336, 42 Atl. 500, 69 Am. St. Rep. 510; Richard- 



son v. Hoxie, 90 Me. 227, 38 Atl. 142 ; Mabie v. Sines, 92 Mich. 545. 52 N. W. 

 1007; Edwards v. H. B. Waite Lbr. Co., 108 Wis. 164, 84 N. W. 150, 81 Am. 

 St. Rep. 884; Lohman v. Peterson, 87 Wis. 227, 58 N. W. 407; Rheaume v. 

 Batiscan River Lbr. Co., 23 Quebec Super. Ct. 166. 



5. Littlefleld v. Morrill, 97 Me. 505, 54 Atl. 1109, 94 Am. S. Rep. 513. 



6. Meands v. Park, 95 Me. 527, 50 Atl. 706. 



7. Kline v. Comstock, 67 Wis. 473, 30 N. W. 920. 



8. Lindsay Etc. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 20 S. Ct. 325, 44 L. Ed. 400. 



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



Hogan v. Gushing, 49 Wis. 169, 5 N. W. 490. But see Hale v. Brown, 59 N. H. 

 551, 47 Am. Rep. 224. 



