214 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



147. The Use of and Injuries to Land Adjacent to 



Streams. If the character of a stream is such that it is 

 subject to a public easement for the driving or floating of 

 logs and rafts, one using the stream legitimately may go upon 

 the banks to remove temporary obstructions from the 

 stream, 1 force logs past an obstruction, 2 break log jams, 3 

 remove stranded logs, 4 secure a boom or raft temporarily, 5 

 and do other acts reasonably necessary for the effective flo- 

 tation of timber products. 6 The right to use the banks is 

 limited to a necessary and reasonable use, 7 and any negli- 

 gence on the part of one using the stream is ordinarily con- 

 sidered the basis of liability for damages. 8 He will not be 



(Footnote 8 concluded from preceding page) 

 Wash. East Hoquiam Boom Etc. Logging Co. v. Nelson, 20 Wash. 142, 54 



Pac. 1001. 

 For application of Canadian statutes regarding improved streams. See Cald- 



well v. McLaren, 9 App. Cas. 392, 53 L. J. P. C. 33, 51 L. T. Rep. N. 



S. 370, (overruling Boale v. Dickson, 13 U. C. C. P. 337) ; Mackey v. 



Sherman, 8 Ont. 28; Whelan v. McLachlan, 16 U. C. C. P. 1(>2. 



Hunt v. Beck, 9 Ont. W. N. 187; Neely v. Peter, 4 Ont. L. Rep. 293 



1 Ont. W. R. 499; McLaren v. Calswell, 8 Can. S. Ct. 435. 



1 . Treat v. Lord, 42 Me. 552, 66 Am. Dec. 298. 



2. See Carter v. Thurston, 58 N. H. 104, 42 Am. Rep. 584 (Right very limited) 



3. Hooper v. Hobson, 57 Me. 273, 99 Am. Dec. 769 (If necessary and no substantial 



damage done.) 



But see Haines v. Hall, 17 Ore. 165; Watkins v. Dorris, 24 Wash. 636, 64 Pac. 



840, 54 L. R. A. 199. 



4. Ford Lbr. Etc. Co. v. McQueen, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 521; Carter v. Thurston, 58 



N. H. 104; 42 Am. Rep. 584; Sheldon v. Sherman, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 368, 42 

 N. Y. Rep. 484. See Garth Lbr. & Shingle Co. v. Johnson, 151 Mich. 205, 

 209; Forster v. Juniata Bridge Co., 16 Pa. St. 393, 45 Am. Dec. 506. 



5. Hayward v. Knapp, 23 Minn. 430; Weise v. Smith, 3 Ore. 445, 8 Am. Rep. 621; 



Pursell v. Stover, 110 Pa. St. 43, 20 Atl. 403. 



6. Brown v. Chadbourne, 31 Me. 9, 50 Am. Dec. 641; Moore v. Jackson, 2 Abb. 



N. Cas. (N. Y.) 211; Downsdale v. Grays Harbor Boom Co., 36 Wash. 198, 

 78 Pac. 904: Cf. Pursell v. Stover, 110 Pa. 43, 20 Atl. 403; State v. Super Ct. 

 60 Wash. 193, 110 Pac. 1017. 



7. Ford Lbr. Etc. Co. v. McQueen, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 521; Sheldon v. Sherman, 42 



Barb. (N. Y.) 368. See Brown v. Kentfleld, 50 Calif. 129; Campbell v. Dickie. 

 36 Nova Scotia 40. 



8. Ala. Harold v. James, 86 Ala. 274, 3 L. R. A. 407. See Gull Red Cedar Co. 



v. Walker, 132 Ala. 553, 31 So. 374. 

 Ark. Henderson v. Lbr. Co. 94 Ark. 370, 127 S. W. 459, 28 L. R. A. N. S. 144, 



f 139 S. W. 649. 



Fla. R. Co. v. Yarbrough, 57 Fla. 101, 48 So. 634. 

 Ky. Thurmon v. Morrison, 14 B. Mon. 296. 

 Me. Howe v. Lbr. Co., 110 Me. 14, 85 Atl. 160. 

 Mich. White River Logging Co. v. Nelson, 45 Mich, 578, 8 N. W. 587, 909; 



Grand Rapids Booming. Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308. 



Minn. Mandery v. Boom Co., 105 Minn. 3, 116 N. W. 1027, 1035; Coyne v. 

 Miss. Epc. Booming Co., 72 Minn. 533, 75 N.W. 748; 71 Am. St. Rep. 

 508, 41 L. R. A. 494; Miller v. Chatterton, 46 Minn. 338, 48 N. W. 11O9. 

 See Ramgren v. McDermott. 73 Mum. 368, 76 N. W. 47; Doucette v. 

 Imp. Etc. Co., 71 Minn. 206, 73 N. W. 847. 

 Breeland, 78 Miss. 864, 29 So. 850. 

 v. Lbr. Co., 187 Mo. App. 386, 173 S. W. 15. 

 F ootnote 8 continued on next page) 



