STATUTORY REGULATION 223 



sponsible. l However, no one but the actual owner of logs 

 can be held for the cost of driving them. 2 The proportion 

 of the whole drive which the intermingled logs constituted 

 will ordinarily be accepted as a basis for the determination 

 of a reasonable compensation by a prorating of the cost. 3 

 The rules of procedure and evidence in such cases follow 

 general principles. 4 



152. Log Driving and Booming Companies. About 

 the beginning of the nineteenth century the necessity of 

 special legislation to encourage the improvement of streams 

 and to regulate the driving of logs by companies or associa- 

 tions was recognized by the enactment of laws in several 

 states. 5 The early laws granted special privileges to 

 specific corporations, but later general laws were passed 

 under authority of which associations of this character might 

 be formed. 6 It has been held that a boom company may 



1. Tibbets. v. Tibbets, 46 Me. 365; Wisconsin Log Driving Asso. v. Comstock 



Lbr. Co. 72 Wis. 464, 40 N. W. 146, 1 L. R. A. 717; cf. Dwinel v. Fisk, 9 Me. 

 21 (Logs cut in trespass). 



2. Marsh v. Flint, 27 Me. 475; Edson v. Gates, 44 Mich. 253, 6 N. W. 645. 



But see, O'Brien v. Glasow, 72 Minn. 135, 75 N. W. 7. (Owner of mark cannot 

 escape on ground that mark was put on for security only). Compare, Boyle 

 v. Musser, 77 Minn. 153, 79 N. W. 664 (Mark of dissolved partnership used 

 by one of former members). 



3. Bearce v. Dudley, 88 Me. 410, 34 Atl. 260; E. W. Backus Lbr. Co. v. Scanlon- 



Gipson Lbr. Co., 78 Minn. 438, 81 N. W. 216; See Crane Lbr. Co. v. Bellows, 

 117 Mich. 482, 76 N. W. 67. 



4. Marsh v. Flint, 27 Me. 475; Bellows v. Crane Lbr. Co., 131 Mich. 630, 92 N. W. 



286; Bellows v. Crane Lbr. Co., 126 Mich. 476, 85 N. W. 1103; O'Brien v. Glas- 

 gow, 72 Minn. 135, 75 N. W. 7; Goff v. Brainerd, 58 Vt. 468, 5 Atl. 393; Norris 

 v. U. S., 44 Fed. 735; Cockburn v. Imperial Lbr. Co., 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 80 

 (Revs'g 26 Ont. App. 19). 

 Me. Act Feb. 11, 1832, Session Laws 1832, p. 6, Ch. 8. 



5. Mass. Act of Mar. 11, 1805, incorporation Saco Boom Co. (Private & Spec. 



St. Mass., Boston, 1805, Vol. 3, p. 522). 

 Compare Act May 16, 1883, S. L., p. 484, ch. 183. 



N. Y. Act Mar. 24, 1801, Laws 1801, p. 74. Act April 4, 1806, Ch. 128. ' See 

 Laws of N. Y., Webster & Skinner, Albany, 1806; Vol. 4, p. 525. 



6. Ark. Digest of Statutes, 1904, Kirby, Ch. 132, Sees. 6522-6544. 



Calif. Act Mar. 3, 1881, Laws of 1881, p. 25, (Repealed 1901). See Gen. Law 



1914. H. & D., p. 221. 



Fla. Compare Compiled Laws 1914, sec. 2543. 

 Idaho Act Feb. 28, 1899, Laws 1899, p. 332 (Rev. Codes 1908, Sees. 872-873, 



2830-32). 



Iowa Compare Code 1897, sec. 2032, riparian owner may construct. 

 Me. Compare Rev. St. 1903, ch. 42, sec. 5, p. 419 (Companies on Saco liable 



for obstruction). 

 Mass. Revised Laws 1902, p. 823, sec. 17, Harbor & Land Com'rs may license 



booms in Connecticut River. 

 Mich. Act Feb. 4, 1864, Sess. L. Mich, 1864, p. 23, Act. 16; Act. Apr. 5, 1869, 



Sess. L. 1869, p. 287, Act No. 149 (See Am'd'ts Apr. 17, 1871, p. 



326; May 13, 1879, p. 181; Apr. 15, 1881, p. 75; Apr. 26, 1887, S. 

 (Footnote 6 continued on next page) 



