LOG DRIVING AND BOOMING COMPANIES 225 



Booms have been considered real estate 1 and are taxable 

 as such. 2 



Since boom companies are considered to have a quasi 

 public character, 3 they may be authorized to condemn 

 real estate when essential to the performance of their func- 

 tions. 4 A legislature cannot authorize the flowage 5 of 

 private lands or the use of the banks 6 without compensa- 

 tion; nor can it authorize a boom company to assume con- 

 trol over the logs of those who do not desire the services of 

 the company, if such logs do not interfere with the legitimate 

 operations of the company. 7 So far as is consistent with 

 the Federal constitution and laws enacted by congress, the 

 legislatures of the several American states may grant ex- 

 clusive rights for the driving and booming of logs in streams 

 flowing through or lying within a state, 8 and it has been 

 held that on a stream wholly within a state the legislature 

 may authorize boom companies to completely obstruct 

 navigation. 9 



1. Peoples Ice Co. v. Steamer Excelsior, 43 Mich. 336; Brig City of Erie v. Canfleld, 



27 Mich. 479. 



2. Hall v. Benton, 69 Me. 346. 



3. Heiberg v. Boom Co. 127 Minn. 8, 148 N. W. 517; Osborne v. Boom Corp. 32 



Minn. 412, 21 N. W. 704, 50 Am. Rep. 590; 



West Branch Boom v. Penn. Joint Lbr. Etc. Co., 121 Pa. St. 158, 6 Am. St. Rep. 

 766; Conn v. Wausau Boom Co. 47 Wis. 314; Duluth Lbr. Co. v. St. Louis 

 Boom Etc. Co., 17 Fed. 419, 5 McCrary 382; Lynch v. Richards, 38 N. Brunsw. 

 160. 



4. Olive v. State, 86 Ala. 88; Lawler v. Baring Boom Co. 56 Me. 445; Benjamin v. 



Manistee River Imp. Co., 42 Mich. 628; Cotton v. Miss. Etc. Boom Co., 22 

 Minn. 372; North River Boom Co. v. Smith (Wash.) 45 Pac. 750. 



5. Bradley v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 82 Mich. 9; Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. 



Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308; Middleton v. Flat River Booming Co., 27 Mich. 533; 

 Weaver v. Miss. Etc. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534; Rogers v. Coal River Boom 

 Etc. Co. (W. Va. 1896) 23 S. E. 919. 



6. Cohn v. Wausau Boom Co., 47 Wis. 314; See Morgan v. King, 35 N. Y. 454, 91 



Am. Dec. 58; Weise v. Smith, 3 Ore. 445, 8 Am. Rep. 621. 



7. Ames v. Port Huron Log Driving Etc. Co., 11 Mich. 139, 83 Am. Dec. 731; 



Boom Corp. v. Lbr. Co. 27 Ont. L. 131, 4 Ont. W. N. 5, 22 Ont. W. R. 952. 



8. Manistee River Imp. Co. v. Sands, 53 Mich. 593; Green v. Knife Falls Boom 



Corp.. 35 Minn. 155; Osborne v. Knife Falls Boom Corp., 32 Minn. 412, 21 

 N. W. 704, 50 Am. Rep. 590; Wisconsin R. Imp. Co. v. Manson, 43 Wis. 255, 



28 Am. Rep. 542. 



But see Boom Corp. v. Lbr. Co. 162 Fed. 287, 89 C. C. A. 267 (Minn-Can, bound- 

 ary.) 



9. Me. Lawler v. Baring Boom Co., 56 Me. 445; Treat v. Lord, 42 Me. 552, 66 



Am. Dec. 298. 



Mich. Atty. Gen'l. v. Evart Booming Co., 34 Mich. 462. 

 Wis. Keator Lbr. Co. v. St. Croix Boom Corp., 72 Wis. 62, 7 Am. St. Rep. 



837; Edwards v. Wausau Boom Co. 67 Wis. 463; Black River Imp. 



Co. v. La Crosse Booming Etc. Co., 54 Wis. 659. 41 Am. Rep. 66; 



cf. Enos. v. Hamilton, 24 Wis. 658. 

 U, S. Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459; U. S. v. Bellingbam Bay Boom Co., 72 



Fed. 585; U. S. v. Beef Slough Mfg. Co., 8 Biss. 421; Heerman v. Beef 



Slough Mfg. Co., 1 Fed. 145, 8 Biss. 335. 



