222 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



the other party from liability for the service. l The one 

 who first places his logs in a stream is entitled to a reasonable 

 time for the completion of his drive and cannot be subjected 

 to additional expense by one who subsequently places his 

 logs in the stream. 2 Under some statutes it is necessary 

 to give notice to the owner that his logs are intermingled. 3 

 Failure to care for the intermingled logs affords the basis for 

 statutory compensation. 4 The mere fact that the owner 

 of the intermingled logs has made adequate provision for 

 the ultimate driving of his logs will not relieve him from 

 liability to one who had no knowledge of such arrangement, 5 

 unless it be shown that he was exercising reasonable dili- 

 gence in caring for his drive. 6 The character, 7 or the 

 time 8 of the intermingling is immaterial if it be established 

 that such intermingling occurred as to make a common drive 

 essential. One who thus undertakes to drive the logs of 

 another assumes the responsibility of an ordinary bailee for 

 the transportation of goods. 9 He must make as clean a 

 drive as is customary, 10 and deliver the logs at their proper 

 destination. " However, they may be driven past their 

 destination, if separation there is impracticable. n It is not 

 essential to the recovery of compensation for the driving of 

 intermingled logs that the one claiming such compensation 

 shall have been the owner of the logs which were lawfully 

 in his possession and for the driving of which he was re- 



1. Lord v. Woodward, 42 Me. 497; Peters v. Gallagher, 37 Mich. 407; E. W. Backus 



Lbr. Co. v. Scanlon-Gispon Lbr. Co., 78 Minn. 438, 81 N. W. 216. 



2. Megquier v. Gilpatrick, 88 Me. 422, 34 Atl. 262. 



3. Osborne v. Nelson Lbr., 33 Minn. 285, 22 N. W. 540. 



4. Hayward v. Campbell, 72 Wis. 321, 39 N. W. 540; See Ames v. Port Huron Log 



Driving Etc. Co., 6 Mich. 266. Miller v. Chatterton, 46 Minn. 338, holding 

 abandonment must be negligent. 



5. Foster v. Gushing, 35 Me. 60; See Megquier v. Gilpatrick, 88 Me. 422; Hayward v. 



Campbell, 72 Wis. 321. 



6. Butterneld v. Gilchrist, 63 Mich. 155, 29 N. W. 682, 53 Mich. 22, 18 N. W. 



542; Gibson v. Trow, 105 Wis. 288; Boom Corp. v. Lbr. Co. 27 Ont. L. 131, 

 4 Ont. W. N. 5, 22 Ont. W. R. 952. 



7. Anderson v. Maloy, 32 Minn. 76, 19 N. W. 387. 



8. Wisconsin River Log Driving Asso., v. Comstock Lbr. Co., 72 Wis. 464, 40 N. 



W. 146, 1 L. R. A. 717. 



9. Foster v. Cushing, 35 Me. 60; Beard v. Clark, 35 Minn. 324, 29 N. W. 142. 



10. Weymouth v. Beatham, 92 Me. 525, 45 Atl. 519; Bearce v. Dudley, 88 Me. 410, 



34 Atl. 260. But see Boyle v. Musser, 77 Minn. 153, 79 N. W., 664. 



11. Bearce v. Dudley, 88 Me. 410, 34 Atl. 260; Doyle v. Pelton, 134 Mich. 398, 96 



N. W. 483; Boyle v. Musser, 77 Minn. 153, 79 N. W. 664; Miller v. Chatter- 

 ton, 46 Minn. 338, 48 N. W. 1109; Osborne v. Nelson Lbr. Co., 33 Minn. 285; 

 22 N. W. 540. 



12. Foster v. Cushing, 35 Me. 60; Beard v. Clarke, 35 Minn. 324, 29 N. W. 142. 



