LOGS. The stems or trunks of trees cut into convenient lengths for the purpose of being afterwards manufactured into lumber of various kinds. Kollock v. Parcher, 52 Wis. 398, 9 N. W. 67.
When logs are driven in a navigable stream in an ordinarily skillful and prudent manner, the owner is not liable for damages sustained by a riparian owner ; Field v. Log Driving Co., 67 Wis. 569, 31 N. W. 17.
Such logs floating down a stream may be moored to the shore for 'a reasonable length of time for the purpose of making them into rafts, or for breaking up the rafts, or to enable the owner to sell them; Hay ward v. Knapp, 23 Minn. 430. But they may not be so stored as to prevent another from entering with a drive of logs from a tribil tary ; McPheters v. Log Driving Co., 78 Me. 329, 5 Atl. 270 ; nor may they be run upon adjacent lands or cause water to overflow, to the injury of the riparian proprietor ; Haines v. Welch, 14 Or. 319, 12 Pac. 502; Lilley V. Fletcher, 81 Ala. 234, 1 South. 273 ; or obstruct a landing place on a navigable river ; French v. Lumber Co., 145 Mass. 261, 14 N. E. 113; and where a boom obstructs navigation or interferes with the use of a dock built in aid of navigation it is a nui sance ; Union Mill Co. v. Shores, 66 Wis. 476, 29 N. W. 243. A state may require all logs running out of a boom to be inspected and scaled ; Lindsay & Phelps Co. v. Mullen, 176
U. S. 126, 20 Sup. Ct. 325, Ed. 400.
Boom companies are not insurers of the logs collected by their booms, nor are they liable for logs which escape by inevitable accident ; Brown v. Boom Co., 109 Pa. 57, 1 AU. 156, 58 Am. Rep. 708 ; except where they fail to exercise due care ; Holway v. Machias Boom, 90 Me. 125, 37 Atl. 882. Where logs drift from a raft broken by a storm with out fault of the owner, he is not obliged to re-capture and remove them, when by: so doing he must resort to extraordinary meth ods and unreasonable expense, in order to escape liability caused by a subsequent storm, although he has not abandoned them; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. McEwen & Murray, 49 La. Ann. 1184, 22 South. 675, 38 L. R. A. 134.
The intention to abandon logs left upon a rollway so long that they have become im bedded in the earth and covered with grass and bushes is necessary to work a change of title, but it may be inferred from the conduct of the owners and the situation of the prop erty ; Log Owners' Booming Co. v. Hubbell, 135 Mich. 65, 97 N. W. 157, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 573.
See LIEN; RIVERS; NAVIGABLE WATERS; RIPARIAN RIGHTS; TIMBER; BOOM COM PANIES.