CONVERSION OF FLOATED TIMBER 237 



the value of the logs at the nearest convenient market, less 

 the cost of transportation to such market. x If an owner 

 of logs fraudulently mingles the unmarked or similarly 

 marked logs of another with his own, or intermingles the 

 lumber sawn from the logs of another with that sawn from 

 his own in such manner that the ownership of the identical 

 logs or lumber cannot be determined, the logs or lumber be- 

 longing to the guilty party may be forfeited to the innocent 

 party under the doctrine of confusion of goods. 2 How- 

 ever, because of the aversion of the courts to forfeitures, 

 where no fraudulent intention is manifest the party wronged 

 will ordinarily be accorded the possession of the confused 

 goods, but the party at fault will be entitled to recover such 

 portion, or the value thereof, as he can clearly prove to be- 

 long to him. 3 As a means of avoiding disputes as to the 

 ownership of logs and to aid in the prevention of theft of 

 timber products, many states have enacted laws which pro- 

 vide for the adoption of a distinguishing mark by each per- 

 son, firm or corporation placing logs or other timber pro- 

 ducts in a certain stream or its tributaries. These statutes 

 ordinarily provide for the recordation of the adopted mark 



(Footnote 8 concluded from preceding page) 



122; Libby v. Johnson, 37 Minn. 22C ; Clark v. Nelson Lbr. Co., 34 



Minn. 289. 



Vt. Hassan v. Lbr. Co., 82 Vt. 444, 74 Atl. 197. 

 Wash. Boom Co. v. Boom Co., 52 Wash. 564, 101 Pac. 48. 

 Wis. Arpin v. Burch, 68 Wis. 619, 32 N. W. 681. 

 U. S. Tome v. Dubois, 6 Wall, 548. 

 Can. Smith v. Baechler, 18 Ont. 293. 



1. Hodson v. Goodale, 22 Ore. 68, 29 Pac. 70. See Stillwell v. Paepke-Leicht Lbr. 



Co., 73 Ark. 432, 84 S. W. 483, 108 Am. St. Rep. 42; Snyder v. East Bay Lbr. 

 Co., 135 Mich. 31, 97 N. W. 49; Miles v. North Pac. Lbr. Co., 38 Ore. 556, 

 64 Pac. 303; Walker v. Duncan, 68 Wis. 624, 32 N. W. 689. Cf. Lbr. Co. v. 

 Wagner (Ky.) 119 S. W. 197 (Prevention of sale by wrongfully marking logs.) 



2. Wingate v. Smith, 20 Me. 287; Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 298; Root 



v. Bonnema, 22 Wis. 539; Jenkins v. Steaaka, 19 Wis. 126, 88 Am. Dec. 675. 



3. Idaho Norman v. Lbr. Co., 22 Ida. 711, 128 Pac. 85. 

 Ky. Day v. Asher, 141 Ky. 468, 132 S. W. 1035. 



Me. Dillingham v. Smith, 30 Me. 370. Cf. Bryant v. Ware, 30 Me 295; 



Hesseltine v. Stockwell, 30 Me. 237, 50 Am. Dec. 627. 

 Mass. See Ryder v. Hathaway, 21 Pick. 298. 

 Mich. Keweenaw Asso., Ltd. v. O'Neil, 120 Mich. 270, 79 N. W. 183; Crane 



Lbr. Co. v. Bellows (Mich.), 74 N. W. 481; Foster v. Warner, 49 Mich. 



641, 14 N. W. 673 (No forfeiture to advantage of third party shingles.) 

 Miss. Blodgett v. Seals, 78 Miss. 522, 29 So. 852. 

 N. Y. Nowlen v. Colt, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 461, 41 Am. Dec. 756 (Wood accidentally 



mixed by flood, held tenants in common.) 

 U. S. Norris v. U. S., 44 Fed. 735. 



