TOLLS FOR THE DRIVING OF LOGS 229 



a sale of a part or all of the logs to satisfy a claim for tolls 

 must be made in strict accordance with all material re- 

 quirements of the statute authorizing a lien, l but unim- 

 portant irregularities will not invalidate a sale. 2 



154. The Liability of Driving and Booming Com- 

 panies. The specific charter or the general statute author- 

 izing the operations of such companies ordinarily define in 

 more or less comprehensive form the duties to be performed 

 and the liabilities to be assumed by them. 3 The statutes 

 often define what logs are to be driven, 4 the time when 

 they must be driven 5 and the manner in which they are 

 to be sorted and delivered. 6 If the charter provides that 

 the company may drive all logs and timber in a certain 

 stream, the company assumes full liability for all logs if it 

 undertakes to carry out the full privilege conferred by the 

 charter. 7 A driving or booming company is not liable as a 

 common carrier, 8 but is liable for any loss due to a lack 

 of reasonable care in the improvement of the stream or in 

 subsequent operations. 9 There is a division of opinion 

 as to whether the burden of proving ordinary care must be 

 assumed by a log driving or booming company. 10 A com- 

 pany cannot be held liable if it be shown that ordinary dili- 

 gence was used or that the loss was due to unavoidable cir- 



1. Bennett's Branch Imp. Co. Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 242. 



2. Hunter v. Perry, 33 Me. 159. See also Kennebec Log Driving Co. v. Burrill, 



18 Me. 314. 



3. Mississippi Etc. Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 79, 24 N. W. 361; West Branch 



Boom Co. v. Dodge, 31 Pa. St. 285. 

 Lynch v. Richards, 38 N. Brunsw. 242. 



4. Patterson v. Penobscot Log Driving Co., 71 Me. 44; St. Louis Dalles Imp. Co. 



v. Nelson Lbr. Co. 43 Minn. 130, 44 N. W. 1080. 

 Murray v. Boom Co. 75 Wash. 605, 137 Pac. 130. 



5. Patterson v. Penobscot Log Driving Co., 71 Me. 44; See Bonifay v. Hassell, 



100 Ala. 269. 



6. Machias Boom v. Sullivan, 87 Me. 506, 33 Atl. 13. 



7. Weymouth v. Penobscot Log Driving Co., 71 Me. 29; But see West Branch 



Boom Co. v. Pennsylvania Joint Lbr. Etc. Co., 121 Pa. St. 143, 15 Atl. 509, 

 6 Am. St. Rep. 766. 



8. Mann v. White River Log Etc. Co., 46 Mich. 38, 8 N. W. 550, 41 Am. St. Rep. 



141; Chesley v. Mississippi Etc. Boom Co., 39 Minn. 83, 38 N. W. 769. 



9. Harold v. Jones, 86 Ala. 274 ; Sullivan v. Jernigan, 21 Fla. 276; Goodin v. Ky. 



Lbr. Co., 90 Ky. 625, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 573; Palmer v. Penobscot Lumbering 

 Assoc., 90 Me. 193, 38 Atl. 108; Holway v. Machias Boom, 90 Me. 125; 37 

 Atl. 882; Davis v. Winslow, 51 Me. 264, 81 Am. Dec. 573; Foster v. Cushing. 

 35 Me. 60; Weld v. Androscoggin R. Side Booms, 6 Me. 93; Hebard v. Shaw, 

 123 Mich. 514; 82 N. W. 250; Hopkins v. Butte Etc. Com'l Co., 13 Mont. 

 223; Tingley v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 5 Wash. 644, 32 Pac. 737, 33 Pac. 

 1055; Crane v. Fry, 126 Fed. 278, 61 C. C. A. 260. 



10. Must assume: Chesley v. Mississippi Etc. Boom Co., 39 Minn. 83, 38 N. W. 

 769. Contra: Melendy v. Ames, 62 Vt. 14, 20 Atl. 161. 



