INJURIES TO BANKS OF STREAMS 217 



admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, l and province of 

 the jury, 2 are applicable to actions of this kind. 



148. The Rights of Riparian Owner as to the Use 

 of Drivable Stream. A riparian owner may maintain a 

 boom 3 or a dam 4 which does not interfere with the reason- 

 able use of the stream by others. The public right to the 

 use of a stream as a highway is primary and superior to the 

 right of the riparian owner to maintain a dam, 5 but it is 

 not exclusive and is subject to such restrictions as are es- 

 sential to the reasonable enjoyment of the right of the 

 riparian owner. 6 The maintenance of dams and the pro- 

 vision of sluiceways for the passage of logs is regulated by 

 statute in many American states. 7 Subject to the limita* 



1. Karwick v. Pickands, 181 Mich. 169, 147 N. W. 605, Of. 137 N. W. 219. 

 CoUurn v. Muskegon Booming Co., 72 Mich. 134, 40 N.W. 198, Witheral v. Musk- 



egon Booming Co., 68 Mich. 48, 35 N. W. 758, 13 Am. St. Rep. 325; Hopkins 

 v. Butte Etc. Co., 16 Mont. 356, 40 Pac. 865; Sewall's Palls Bridge v. Fisk, 

 23 N. H., 171; Taylor v. Norfolk Etc. R. Co., 131 N. C. 50, 42 8. E. 464; Gwalt- 

 ney v. Scottish Carolina Timber Etc. Co., Ill N. C. 547, 16 S. E. 692; Hunter 

 v. Grande Ronde Lbr. Co., 39 Ore. 448, 65 Pac. 598; Shaw v. Susquehanna 

 Boom Co., 125 Pa. St. 324, 17 Atl. 426; Edwards v. Wausau Boom Co., 67 

 Wis. 463, 30 N. W. 716. Johnson v. Lbr. Co. 75 Wash. 539, 135 Pac. 217. 



2. Anderson v. Thunder Bay River Boom Co., 61 Mich. 489, 28 N. W. 518; Gutter- 



son v. G%uld, 77 Hun. (N. Y.) 429, 28 N. Y. Suppl. 798; Garvin v. Gates, 73 

 Wis. 514 (as to what constitutes "good driving water" as used in contract.) 

 See Lbr. Co. v. Henderson, 100 Ark. 53, 139 S. W. 649; Sutherland v. Boom etc., 

 Co. 73 Wash. 75, 131 Pac. 455. 



3. Warner v. Lumber Etc. Co., 123 Ky. 103, 93 S. W. 650, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 527, 12 



L. R. A..N. S. 667; Brig "City of Erie" v. Canfleld, 27 Mich. 479; Mill Etc. 

 Co. v. Johnson, 52 Ore. 547, 98 Pac. 132, 132 Am. St. Rep. 716; Boom Co. 

 v. Reilly, 44 Wis. 295; Brace v. Forwarding Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 43. 

 But see Atlee v. Union Packet Co., 21 Wall. (U. S.) 389; Northwestern Packet 

 Co. v. Atlee, 2 Dill (U. S.) 479; Moore v. Jackson, 2 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 

 211; Tanguay v. Price, 37 Can. S. Ct. 657. 



4. Middleton v. Flat River Booming Co., 27 Mich. 533; See Collins v. Howard, 



65 N. H. 190; Munson v. Hungerford, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 265; Martin v. Boom 

 Co., 79 Wash. 393, 140 Pac. 355; A. C. Conn Co. v. Little Suamico Lbr. Mfg. 

 Co., 74 Wis. 652. 



5. Foster v. Searsport Spool Etc. Co., 79 Me. 208, 11 Atl. 273; Pearson v. Rolfe. 



76 Me. 380; see Stratton v. Currier 81 Me. 497, 17 Atl. 579, 3 L. R. A. 809; 

 Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Conn. Riv. Co., 52 Conn. 570; Lancey v. Clif- 

 ford, 54 Me. 487, 92 Am. Dec. 561. 



6. Parks v. Morse, 52 Me. 260; Veazie v. Dwinel, 50 Me. 479; Buchanan v. Grand 



River Etc. Log Running Co., 48 Mich. 364, 12 N. W. 490; Crookston Water- 

 works Etc. Co. v. Sprague, 91 Minn. 461, 98 N. W. 347, 99 N. W. 420, 103 

 Am. St. Rep. 525, 64 L. R. A. 977; Kamm v. Normand, 50 Ore. 9, 91 Pac. 448, 

 126 Am. St. Rep. 698, 11 L. R. A. N. S. 290; Dumont v. Fraser, 48 S. C. 137; 

 Conn. Co. v. Lbr Etc. Co.. 74 Wis. 652, 43 N. W. 660; Ward v. Grenville Tp... 

 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 510. Cf. James v. Rathbun Co., 11 Out. L. R. 871, 6 Ont. W. R^ 

 1005. 



7. Ala. Act. Feb. 28. 1887, Sess. L. 1887, p. 132; Criminal Code 1907, Sec. 7863.. 

 Dak. Act. Jan. 2, 1863, Laws of Dak. 1862-63, p. 238, ch. 47. 



Idaho Act of Feb. 5, 1885, Laws of Idaho, 1885 p. 177 (See Rev. S.t. Ida. Terr . 



1887, p. 830-836. Rev. Code 1908, sec. 872.) 

 Ky. Act Mar. 21, 1906; Same Ky. Stat. 1909, Ch. 38a. 

 (Footnote 7 continued on next page) 



