THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



for the damages suffered by the latter. * If logs are com- 

 mingled in such a way that they cannot practically be sep- 

 arated until driven to a point farther down the stream, 

 either party may ordinarily collect a reasonable compensa- 

 tion for driving the logs of the other to a point of convenient 

 separation, provided such notice is given as to afford to the 

 other party a reasonable time to care for his own logs 2 but 

 this principle will not be extended so as to authorize com- 

 pensation for unnecessary and voluntary services. 3 Where 

 an explicit contract is made between two parties for the 

 driving of logs the rights and duties of the parties will be en- 

 forced in accordance with the terms of such contract, irre- 

 spective of common law rules or of statutory regulations of 

 the jurisdiction, provided the terms of the contract are not 

 subversive of public policy. 4 



151. General Statutory Regulation of Log Driv- 

 ing. In a few states there are laws prescribing the manner 

 in which logs shall be floated and providing for a forfeiture 

 of the logs or for other penalty if the logs are not floated in 

 compliance with the terms of the statutes. 5 These acts 

 aim at a prevention of injury by loose and uncontrolled logs, 

 and have been sustained by the courts as constitutional. 6 

 In many states statutes provide that one who is compelled 

 to break jams formed through the negligence of another 

 party using the stream, or to drive the logs of another in 



1. Bearce v. Dudley, 88 Me. 410, 34 Atl. 260; Bellant v. Brown, 78 Mich. 294, 44 



N. W. 326; Miller v. Chatterton, 46 Minn. 338, 48 N. W. 1109/Auger v. Cook, 

 39 U. C. Q. B. 537. 



2. Hodson v. Goodale, 22 Ore. 68, 29 Pac. 70. 



3. Doyle v. Pelton, 134 Mich. 398, 96 N. W. 483; Peters v. Gallagher, 37 Mich. 407. 



4. Dow v. Huckins. 34 Me. 110; McDonald v. Boeing, 80 Mich. 415, 45 N. W. 362; 



Beard v. Clarke, 35 Minn. 324, 29 N. W. 142; Walker v. Bean. 34 Minn. 427, 

 26 N. W. 232. 



5. Ky. Act May 7, 1886, (Gen'l Laws Ky. 1887, p. 495.) 



Mass. Act Mar. 1, 1815. (Pub. & Gen'l Laws Mass., Boston, 1816. p. 462) 



(See Rev. L. Mass. 1902, p. 815, Sec. 5.) 



N. H. Act June 10, 1808 (Laws of N. H., Exeter, 1815, p. 339.) 

 Ohio Act Mar. 23, 1840 (Laws of Ohio, 1839-40, p. 95, Sec. 35, Canal Act.) 

 Pa. Act Mar. 20, 1812, Pamphlet Laws 1812, p. 136. ch. 91. Act Dec. 11, 1866, 



Pamphlet Laws 1867, No. 1366. 



Cf. Ala. Crim. Code, 1907, sec. 7868 (Act. Oct. 9, 1903, p. 536) and Col. Annota- 

 ted Stat. 1912, Mills, Sec. 3019 (Bonds against injury to bridges.) 



6. Com. v. Asher Lbr. Co., 32 S. W. 136, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 542; Johnson v. Com.. 



20 S. W. 200, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 257; Com. v. Puckett, 92 Ky. 206, 17 S. W. 353: 

 Evans v. Com., (Ky. 1888) 7 S. W. 925; French v. Connecticut R. Lbr. Co., 

 145 Mass. 261; Harrigan v. Conn. R. Lbr. Co., 129 Mass. 580, 37 Am. Rep. 

 387; Barron v. Davis, 4 N. H. 338; Scott v. Wilson, 3 N. H. 321: Wendt v. 

 Craig, 67 Pa. St. 424; Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. St. 399, 3 Am. Rep. 636. 



