216 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



gence 1 on the part of the injured party. The same rules 

 obtain as to injuries from the overflowing of land because of 

 log jams, splash dams, or booms. Any negligence in the 

 construction of boom, lack of diligence in driving logs or 

 unnecessary delay in the breaking of a jam will give rise to 

 an action for damages, * and liability will be incurred even 

 where due diligence is exercised if the frequent or continued 

 overflow of lands is the natural and logical result of the 

 operation of a boom. 3 The common law and statutory 

 rights may be modified by contract. 4 



In several states statutes provide for an assessment of 

 damages by disinterested parties; 5 but it has been held that 

 such provisions do not preclude the determination of the 

 damage by other means, 6 and that they are applicable 

 only to ordinary and necessary damages and not to those 

 resulting from negligence. 7 It has also been held that the 

 remedy for damages was not limited to a seizure of logs as 

 provided by statute, but that an action at law for damages 

 might also be brought. 8 The transfer of title in a boom 

 from one party to another carries with it such rights as have 

 been acquired from riparian owners for the maintenance of 

 the boom. 9 The general rules of law regarding the grant- 

 ing of an injunction, 10 the proof of title, " burden of proof, 12 



1. Miller v. Sherry, 65 Wis., 129, 26 N. W.. 612. 



2. Mich. Witheral v. Muskegon Booming Co. 68 Mich. 48, 35 N. W. 758, 13 Am. 



St. Rep. 325; Bauman v. Pere Marquette Boom Co., 66 Mich. 544, 33 

 N. W. 538; Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co., 61 Mich. 489, 

 28 N. W. 518; White River Log Et. Co. v. Nelson, 45 Mich. 578, 8 

 N. W. 578, 909. 



Minn. Osborne v. Miss. Etc. River Boom Co., 95 Minn. 149, 103 N. W. 879; 

 Coyne v. Miss. Etc. Boom Co., 72 Minn. 533, 75 N. W. 748, 71 Am. 

 St. Rep. 508, 41 L. R. A. 494. 



Mont. Hopkins v. Butte Etc. Co., 16 Mont. 356, 40 Pac. 865. 

 N. H. George v. Fisk, 32 N. H. 32. 

 Wash. White v. Codd, 39 Wash. 14, 80 Pac. 836. 



3. Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308; Hueston v. Miss. Etc. Boom 



Co., 76 Minn. 251, 79 N. W. 92; Weaver v. Miss. Etc. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 

 534; See Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall (U. S.) 181; Barrett v. Bangor, 

 70 Me. 335. Baumgartner v. Sturgeon R. Boom Co. (Mich.) 79 N. W. 566. 



4. Bradley v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 82 Mich. 9, 46 N. W. 24; Lacy v. Green, 



84 Pa. St. 514. 

 o. Bald Eagle Boom Co. v. Sanderson, 81 1-2 Pa. St. 402. 



6. Miller v. Chatterton, 46 Minn. 338. 48 N. W. 1109; Brewster v. Rogers Co., 



169 N. Y. 73. 62 N. E. 164, 58 L. R. A. 495, 42 App. Div. 343, 59 N. Y. Suppl. 

 32. 



7. Mandlebaum v. Russell, 4 Nev. 551. 



8. Coe v. Hall, 41 Vt. 325. See Howe v. Lbr. Co. 110 Me. 14, 85 Atl. 160. 



9. Hoskins v. Brown, 76 Me. 68; See Engel v. Ayer, 85 Me. 448, 27 Atl. 352. 



10. Buchanan v. Grand River Etc. Log Running Co., 48 Mich. 364, 12 X. W. 490. 



11. Field v. Apple River Log Driving Co., 67 Wis. 569, 31 N. W. 17. 



12. Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co., 61 Mich. 489, 28 N. W. 518. 



