232 THE FLOTATION OF TIMBER 



high water mark rule is undoubtedly the most satisfactory. * 

 The common law has been specifically modified by statute 

 in Maine and Massachusetts so as to extend the title of 

 riparian proprietors to low water mark even on tidal waters. 2 

 A riparian owner may rightfully take and use drift stuff 

 which lodges upon the shores adjacent to his land, whether 

 the stream be tidal or only navigable in fact; but material 

 which has merely escaped from the possession or control of 

 its owner and has not been abandoned is not subject to 

 appropriation by a riparian owner as drift stuff. 3 Under 

 the common law a riparian owner cannot legally appro- 

 priate logs, lumber or other timber products stranded upon 

 the banks of a lake or stream but not abandoned by the 

 owner. 4 In some American jurisdictions it has been held 

 that an owner of personal property that has been unavoid- 

 ably washed upon shores owned by another has a common 

 law right to remove the same, while in other American 

 states such entry will be held to constitute trespass. 5 Of 

 course the right of removal may be acquired by contract. 



156. Statutory Regulation of the Disposal of Floated 

 Timber over which the Owner has Lost Control. The 



necessity of statutory regulation as to the disposal of scat- 

 tered or stranded timber became apparent early in the de- 

 velopment of the lumber industry in New England. An 

 act passed by the General Assembly of Connecticut on May 

 14, 1752, contained comprehensive provisions as to the 

 course to be pursued regarding timber products stranded 

 along the Connecticut River, prescribed rates of compensa- 



1. Shively v. Bowlby. 152 U. S. 1 : Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. 8. 324. For con- 

 flicting citations see Am. & Eng, Enc. of Law, 2d Ed., Vol. 4, pp. 823-828; 

 Cyc. of Law & Proc., 1st Ed., Vol. 5, pp. 894-897. See also D. S. v. Roth, 

 2 Alaska 257. 



2. See citations in Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d Ed., Vol. 4. p. 820; also Vol. 21, 



p. 437; Cyc. of Law & Proc., Vol. 5, 893. 



3. Lbr. Co. v. Fix. (Ark.) 126, S. W. 287; Norman v. Lbr. Co. 22 Ida. 711, 128 



Pac. 85; Lbr. Co. v. Stout, 134 La. 987, 64 So. 881; Bennett v. Pulpwood Co. 

 181 Mich. 33. 147 N. W. 490; Timber Co. y. Lbr. Co. 117 Minn. 355, 135 N.W. 

 1132 See Watson v. Knowles, 13 R. I. 639, 641 ; Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 

 255; Creagh v. Bass, (Ala.) 67 So. 288; Volsin v. Lbr. Co. 131 La. 775, 60 So. 

 241. 



4. West Branch Lumbermen's Exch. v. McCormick Estate, 1 Pa. Dist. 542; com- 



pare Eastman v. Harris, 4 La. Ann. 193; Deadrick v. Quids, 86 Tenn. 14, 

 6 Am. St. Rep. 812: Whitman v. Lifting Co. 152 Mich. 645, 116 N. W. 614, 

 20 L. R. A. N. S. 984. 



5. Cyclopedia of Law & Proc., 1st Ed., Vol. 38; p. 1057. 



6. Bradley v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 82 Mich. 9, 46 N. W. 24. See Tome v. 



Dubois, 6 Wall. 548 (Sawing of logs after notice by owner not to saw any more.) 



