151 Mich. 205 | Mich. | 1908
Defendants appealed from an order granting an injunction. 150 Mich. 73. They were restrained—
“From in any manner interfering with or preventing the booming, sorting and removal of the logs, ties, poles, posts and other forest products belonging to the said com
We shall treat the bill as admitting rthat complainants were making such use of the stream, and of the banks thereof, as the injunction, in terms, protects. That is, they were booming and sorting forest products in the stream upon the defendants’ lands, had and maintained booms in the stream which were attached to defendants’ lands and their men went upon and walked along the shores of the river, on the lands of defendants, in the work of sorting logs and in removing such as were lodged or stranded. We assume, also, that the White Fish river is, where it flows over defendants’ lands, in sections 21 and 28, town 41 north, of range 21 west, navigable only for floating forest products. The right asserted by complainants, the exercise of which they contend should be protected by injunction (the bill asks for no other relief), is bottomed, in the argument, upon three distinct grounds.
First, upon the statute, Act No. 189, Pub. Acts 1905, entitled:
“An act to regulate and define the rights of persons in runnings rafting and booming of logs, timber, ties, posts or poles in the streams and rivers of the Upper Peninsula, in the State of Michigan.”
This act has two sections which read:
“ Section 1. It shall be lawful for any person or persons having logs, timber, ties, posts or poles in any stream in the Upper Peninsula navigable for such logs, timber, ties, posts or poles, to temporarily boom and assort such
“Sec. 2. Provided, That this act shall not apply to any rivers or waters now having organized boom companies doing business under charter or to Anna river in Alger county.”
It is charged in the bill that there is no organized boom company doing business under charter on the White Fish river.
Second, upon a prescriptive right to do the work they were doing in the manner in which they were doing it. It is charged in the bill that the stream has been used for floating logs for 50 years, that two of complainants have had in said river, for 10 years, forest products to be floated down it, sorted at its mouth and towed to the mills, that the other complainant has for two years been engaged in the same business, having purchased from another mills, lands, booms and sorting works which had been established at the mouth of the stream and used for sorting logs which came down the stream, for 80 years or more. That in March, 1907, complainants entered into an agreement by which—
“After the logs had been driven to a solid jam down the said White Fish river at or near the State Road bridge, which crosses the said White Fish river about one mile from its mouth, they should sort said logs, use the booms which had been placed in said river and which had been used for many years in sorting logs and other forest products, now owned by the Garth Lumber & Shingle Co., and also adding such additional booms as might be necessary for said purpose, and under this arrangement the parties contributed to the cost of this sorting proportionately to the amount of timber each had in said river.”
Third, upon the common law — that what they are pro
Because no ground for equitable interference is stated in the bill of complaint, it will be dismissed, with costs of both courts, without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties to institute suits at law.