230 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



cumstances. 1 Any negligent or unnecessary obstruction 

 of the stream by a boom, or improvement works, 2 or any 

 unnecessary detention or interference with logs for the 

 driving of which the company is not responsible, 3 will 

 render the company liable in damages to the party injured. 

 This liability is subject to the right of a reasonable detention 

 for the purpose of sorting from the intermingled logs those 

 for which the company is responsible. 4 Boom companies 

 are not liable for damages resulting from the manner in 

 which logs are driven or boomed by a contractor, if the in- 

 jury was not proximately due to some requirement in the 

 contract as to the time or manner of fulfillment. 5 A char- 

 tered boom company ordinarily has no paramount right of 

 use in a stream but only a concurrent right which is limited 

 by the rights of riparian owners, 6 mill owners, 7 and 

 others using the stream for navigation purposes. 8 How- 



1. Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Baker, 16 Me. 233; Brown v. SusquehannaJJoom Co., 



109 Pa. St. 57, 1 Atl. 156; 58 Am. Rep. 708; Leigh v. Holt, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 338. 

 See Lbr. Co. v. Boom Corp. 72 Wis. 62, 38 N. W. 529, 7 Am. St. Rep. 837. 



2. Sullivan v. Jernigan, 21 Fla. 264; Watts v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 52 Mich. 



203, 17 N. W. 809; Pickens v. Coal River Boom Etc. Co., 51 W. Va. 445. 41 

 S. E. 400, 90 Am. St. Rep. 819. See U. S. v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 

 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. 343 (Trip in boom not free passage, injunction, harbor 

 act). 



3. McPheters v. Moose River Log Driving Co., 78 Me. 329 (Damages include 



wages and board of men, etc.) ; Ames v. Port Huron Log Driving Etc. Co., 

 6 Mich. 266; West Branch Boom Co. v. Dodge, 31 Pa. St. 285; Mason v. 

 Boom Co. 16 Fed. Gas. Mo. 9, 232, 3 Wall. Jr. 252. 



See also Lbr. Co. v. Dam Co. 115 Minn. 484, 132 N. W. 1126; Lawber v. Wells, 

 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 454; Murray v. Boom Co. 75 Wash. 605, 137 Pac. 130; 

 Shields v. Lbr. Co. 48 Wash. 679, 94 Pac. 644. 



4. West Branch Boom Co. v. Penn. Joint Lbr. Co., 121 Pa. St. 143, 15 Atl. 509, 



6 Am. St. Rep. 766; Edwards v. Wausau Boom Co., 67 Wis. 463, 30 N. W. 716; 

 Nester v. Diamond Match Co. 105 Fed. 567, 44 C. C. A. 606, 52 L. R. A. 950; 

 See also Morgan v. King. 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 277; Powers' Appeal. 125 Pa. St. 

 175, 17 Atl. 254, 11 Am. St. Rep. 882, 23 Wkly Notes Cas. (Pa.) 485. 



5. McDonnell v. Rifle Boom Co., 71 Mich. 61; Moore v. Sanborne, 2 Mich. 519, 



59 Am. Dec. 209; Pierpont v. Loveless, 72 N. Y. 211; Bearrs v. Sherman. 56 

 WLs. 55. 



6. Plummer v. Penobscot Lbr. Asso., 67 Me. 363; White River Logging Co. v. Nel- 



son, 45 Mich. 578; Grand Rapids Boom Co. v. Jarvis, 30 Mich. 308; Bald 

 Eagle Boom Co. v. Sanderson, 81 1/2 Pa. St.402;Hackstack v. Keshena Imp. 

 Co., 66 Wis. 439. 



7. Buchanan v. Grand River Etc. Log Running Co., 48 Mich. 364; Att'y Gen'l 



v. Evart Booming Co., 34 Mich. 462; Thunder Bay Booming Co. v. Speechly, 

 31 Mich. 336, 18 Am. Rep. 184; Middleton v. Flat River Booming Co., 27 Mich. 

 533. See Pearson v. Rolfe, 76 Me. 380; Koopman v. Blodgett, 70 Me. 610; 

 Kroll v. Nester, 52 Mich. 70; Beard v. Clarke, 35 Minn. 324; Merriman v. 

 Bowen, 33 Minn. 455; Volk v. Eldred, 23 Wis. 410. 



8. See references under (7) and also Brown v. Kentfleld, 50 Cal. 129; Stevens 



Point Boom Co. v. Reilly, 46 Wis. 237, 44 Wis. 295; Harrington v. Edwards, 

 17 Wis. 586, 84 Am. Dec. 768; Atlee v. Union Packet Co., 21 Wall. (U. S.) 

 389; Beliveau v. Levasseur, 1 Revue Lcgale (Quebec) 720. 



