TOLLS FOR THE DRIVING OF LOGS 227 



pany, on the ground that few improvements had been made 

 and that he could have driven his logs without the help of 

 such improvements. x The tolls cannot be collected if the 

 improvements are not maintained in fairly effective condi- 

 tion, 2 nor if they are made for some other purpose than 

 that of preparing the stream for log driving. 3 It has also 

 been held that the collection of tolls was dependent upon 

 the establishment of an agreement where there was no 

 statute fixing the rates. 4 However, the required agree- 

 ment may be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the 

 circumstances attending the driving. The state legislature 

 has the power to fix the rate of compensation, 5 but where 

 the state has not prescribed the rate, the court and jury will 

 determine a reasonable rate, 6 if the rate has not been fixed 

 by contract. 7 A driving or booming company ordinarily 

 has a lien on the logs for the toll charges. 8 The contract 

 must be substantially fulfilled before the lien may be en- 

 forced. 9 As in other cases in which a lien is given by 

 statute, the lien must be enforced in strict accordance with 

 the requirements of the statute. 10 Such a hen may be 

 waived either expressly or by implication. " A booming 



1. Genesee Fork Imp. Co. v. Ives, 114 Pa. St. 114, 22 Atl. 887, 13 L. R. A. 427. 



2. St. Louis River Dalles Imp. Co. v. Nelson Lbr. Co., 51 Minn. 10, 52 N. W. 976; 



Lehigh Coal Etc. Co. v. Brown, 100 Pa. St. 338. 



3. Matter of Little Bob River, 23 Ont. App. 177. Cf. Franck v. Lbr. Co. 67 Wash. 



553, 122 Pac. 7; Mackey v. Sherman, 8 Ont. 28. 



4. Ocqueoc Imp. Co. v. Mosher, 101 Mich. 473, 59 N. W. 664; Coffin v. Robinson, 



106 Me. 54, 76 Atl. 949: Cf. Mfg. Co. v. Lbr. Co. 12 Ont. L. 163, 8 Ont. W. R. 35. 



5. Machias Boom v. Sullivan, 85 Me. 343; Side Booms v. Haskell, 7 Me. 474; West 



Branch Lumbermen's Exch. v. Fisher, 150 Pa. St. 475; See Merritt v. Knife 

 Falls Boom Corp. 34 Minn. 245. Boom Co. v. Lbr. Co., 146 Wis. 559, 

 132 N. W. 118; Lbr. Co. v. Boom Co. 76 Wis. 76, 45 N. W. 18. 



6. Pere Marquette Boom Co. v. Adams, 44 Mich. 403; Underwood Lbr. Co. v. 



Pelican Boom Co., 76 Wis. 76; Wausau Boom Co. v. Plummer, 49 Wis. 115. 



7. Haughton v. Busch, 101 Mich. 267; Keystone Lbr. Co. v. Dole, 43 Mich. 370; 



Ames v. Port Huron Log Driving Etc. Co., 6 Mich. 266; Penobscot Boom Corp. 

 v. Penobscot Lumbering Assoc., 61 Me. 533; Gill v. Johnston Lbr. Co., 151 

 P. A. St. 534; Weatherby v. Meikeljohn, 56 Wis. 78; Sellers v. Union Lumber- 

 ing Co., 39 Wis. 525. 



8. Hunter v. Perry, 33 Me. 159; Kroll v. Nester, 52 Mich. 70; Johnson v. Cranage, 



45 Mich. 14; Robson v. Miss. R. Logging Co., 61 Fed. 893. 



9. Lewiston Steam Mill Co. v. Richardson Lake Dam Co., 77 Me. 337; Haughton 



v. Busch, 101 Mich. 267; compare Swift River Etc. Imp. Co. v. Brown, 77 Me. 

 40; St. Louis River Dalles Imp. Co. v. Nelson Lbr. Co.. 51 Minn. 10. 



10. Clark v. Adams, 33 Mich. 159; Chapman v. Keystone Lbr. Etc. Co., 20 Mich. 

 358; Griffin v. Chadbourne, 32 Minn. 126; Overbeck v. Calligan, 6 Wash. 

 342; Tewksbury v. Bronson, 48 Wis. 581. 



U. Tyler v. Blodgett Etc. Lbr. Co., 78 Mich. 81; Au Sable River Boom Co. v. San- 

 born, 36 Mich. 358; Hutchins v. Olcutt, 4 Vt. 549, 24 Am. Dec. 634. But see 

 Roberts v. Wilcoxson, 36 Ark. 355 ; Prentiss v. Garland, 67 Me. 345 ; Haughton 

 v. Busch, 101 Mich. 267. 



