226 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



153. The Collection of Tolls by Driving and Boom- 

 ing Companies. Both the special acts and the general 

 acts regulating the driving and booming of logs by associa- 

 tions and corporations provide for the collection of tolls to 

 reimburse the initial and subsequent expenses of improving 

 the stream and the cost of operation, together with what is 

 considered a reasonable profit. 1 When the legislature 

 merely fixes a maximum toll, the question of what is a 

 reasonable charge is a proper one for a jury. 2 The courts 

 have generally construed acts of this- character liberally 

 enough to authorize all acts necessary to a practicable and 

 profitable operation by a company; 3 yet the grantee must 

 be determined with sufficient certainty 4 and an act pro- 

 viding for a toll in the form of a public tax for special pur- 

 poses was held unconstitutional in North Carolina on the 

 ground that some of those taxed were deriving no benefit 

 from the improvement. 5 



While the collection of a toll is dependent upon the ful- 

 fillment of the obligations of the company or corporation as 

 to the improvement of the stream or the care of the logs 

 during the drive; 6 a Pennsylvania court has held that one 

 using a stream for log driving could not escape the payment 

 of tolls to a regularly organized stream improvement com- 



1. Ala. Ct. Galloway v. -Henderson. 136 Ala. 318, 34 So. 957; Turnti v. Mobile, 



135 Ala. 128, 33 So. 132 (Lien fo.- Doomage). 

 Me. Machias Boom v. Holway, 89 Me. 236, 36 Atl. 378: Penobscot Boom Corp. 



v. Fenobscot Lumbering Assoc., 61 Me. 533. 

 Mich. Hall v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 51 Mich. 377, 16 N. W. 770; Pere 



Marquette Boom Co. v. Adams, 44 Mich. 403, 6 X. W. 857; Benjamin 



v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 42 Mich. 628. 

 Pa. Genesee Fork Imp. Co. v. Ives, 144 Pa. St. 114, 22 Atl. 887, 13 L. R. A. 



427. See Boom v. Dodge. 31 Pa. 285 (St. not retroactive). 

 Wis. Falls Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Riv. Imp. Co., 87 Wis. 134; Wisconsin Log 



Driv. Assoc. v. Comstock Lbr. Co., 72 Wis. 464; Wausau Bocm Co. 



v. Plummei, 49 Wis. 115, 5 N. W. 26; Wisconsin R. Imp. Co. v. Mason 



43 Wis. 255, 28 Am. Rep. 542. . 

 Can. See South Bay Boom Co. v. Jewett, 10 N. Brunsw. 267. 



For definition of "raftage" and "Doomage," see Bangor Boom Corp. 



v. Whitney, 29 Me. 123; Farrand v. Clark, 63 Minn. 181. 65 N. W. 

 361; Moss Point Lbr. Co. v. Thompson. 83 Miss. 499, 35 So. 828. 



2. Sturgeon River Boom Co. v. Nester, 55 Mich. 113, 20 N. W. 815. See Boom 



Co. v. Lbr. Co. 146 Wis. 559, 132 N. W. 1118 (Discrimination in rate). 



3. Bassett v. Carleton, 32 Me. 553, 54 Am. Dec. 605; Androscoggin River v. Haskell 



7 Me. 474; Northwestern Imp. Etc. Co. v. O'Brien, 75 Minn. 335, 77 X. W. 

 989. 



4. Sellers v. Union Lumbering Co., 39 Wis. 525. 



5. Button v. Webb, 124 N. C. 749, 33 S. E. 171; 126 N. C. 897. 36 S. E. 341. 



6. Dam Co. v. Clothing Co. 102 Me. 257, 66 Atl. 537; Swift River Etc. Imp. Co. 



v. Brown, 77 Me. 40; Susquehanna Boom Co. v. Dubois, 58 Pa. St. 182. See 

 Dam Co. v. Excelsior Co. 105 Me. 249. 74 Atl. 115. 



