228 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



company may be required by law to survey all logs in its 

 boom before enforcing the collection of tolls, l but an 

 actual measurement or scaling of all logs is not necessary. 2 

 Defects in the boom which did not affect the particular lot 

 of logs for which collection of toll is sought cannot be urged 

 as a defense against the liability for such tolls. 3 



Some laws specifically authorize stream improvement 

 companies to drive and boom logs which interfere with their 

 operations 4 and afford a lien for the customary tolls 6 

 irrespective of any agreement for the performance of such 

 services. 6 However, toll cannot be collected for the 

 driving of logs which do not interfere with the operations of 

 the company, 7 or for the driving of which the company 

 cannot be held to assume responsibility, 8 especially if the 

 company is'notified that its assistance is not desired. 9 The 

 right to collect tolls where no contract exists is dependent 

 upon a public grant or license. 10 The statutes providing 

 for the incorporation of log driving and booming companies 

 often authorize the stoppage of the drive on the logs of a 

 delinquent patron, but such stoppage is not always practic- 

 able and an action will lie in favor of the company for the 

 recovery of a toll on the logs driven. u As indicated above 



1. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson, 16 Me. 224; 33 Am. Dec. 656; Androscoggin 



River Etc. v. Haskell, 7 Me. 474. 



2. Wausau Boom Co. v. Plumer, 49 Wis. 115, 5 N. W. 26. 



3. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Wadleigh, 16 Me. 235; Androscoggin River Side Booms 



Co. v. Weld, 6 Me. 105. 



4. McDonald v. Boeing, 80 Mich. 416; Sturgeon River Boom Co. v. Nester, 55 



Mich. 113; Beard v. Clarke, 35 Minn. 324; Green v. Knife Falls Boom Corp., 

 35 Minn. 155; Walker v. Beam, 34 Minn. 427; Merriman v. Bowen, 33 Mum. 

 455; Anderson v. Maloy, 32 Minn. 76; Hodson v. Goodale, 22 Ore. 419. See 

 Cockburn v. Lbr. Co. 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 80 (Revs'g Ont. App. 19) (May resort 

 to arbitration instead of breaking jam). 



5. Kroll v. Nester, 52 Mich. 70; Hall v. Tittabawassee Boom Co. 51 Mich. 377; 



Miller v. Chatterton, 46 Mich. 338; Clark v. Adams. 33 Mich. 159; Chapman 

 v. Keystone Lbr. Etc. Co., 20 Mich. 358; Chesley v. DeGratf, 35 Minn. 415; 

 Osborne v. Nelson Lbr. Co., 33 Minn. 285; Wisconsin River Log Driving 

 Assoo. v. Comstock Lbr. Co., 72 Wis. 464. 



6. St Louis Dalles Imp. Co. v. Nelson Lbr. Co.. 43 Minn. 130. 44 N. W. 1080; 



East Hoquiam Boom Etc. Co. v. Neeson, 20 Wash. 142, 54 Pac. 1001 ; Duluth 

 Lbr. Co. v. St. Louis Boom Etc. Co., 17 Fed. 419, 5 McCrary 382. 



7. Peters v. Gallagher, 37 Mich. 407. See Lbr. Co. v. Boom Corp. 115 Minn. 296, 



13 N. W. 259. 



8. Chase v. Dwinal, 7 Me. 134, 20 Am. Dec. 352. 



9. Washougal River Imp. Co. v. Skamania Logging Co., 23 Wash. 89, 62 Pac. 



450; Gray's Harbor Boom Co. v. McAmmant, 21 Wash. 465, 58 Pac. 573. 



10. Lamprey v. Nelson, 24 Minn. 304. 



11. Bear Camp River Co. v. Woodman, 2 Me. 404; West Branch Logging Co. v. 



Strong, 196 Pa. St. 51, 46 Atl. 290. Cf. Mfg. Co. v. Lbr. Co. 12 Ont. L. Rep 

 163, 8 Ont. W. R. 35; Re. Mfg. Co 9 Ont. W. R. 99. 



