24 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



October 10. 1921 



;illi)W ninety days from date of invoice provided trade acceptance tor full 

 nmoiint without discount was sent in promptly. 



Tlie Imyer, however, did not comply with offer but instead sent 

 seller an acee|)tance for a part of llie amount, dating same ninety days 

 from April 21 instead of Marcli 10. Tliis acceptance was refused and 

 returned to buyer as not beinj; in accordance with the asreement. 



The shipment was delayed in transit and no settlement was made thereon 

 until selliT received checit on July 20 for full amount. The latter promptly 

 made demand on buyer for interest for the extra time taiien. Buyer then 

 Icuidered his checl< for $20.Si). which was the amount of interest at 6% 

 on the amount involved froui .lune 10 (the due date accordini; to the 

 extension agreement) to date settlement was mailed, or July 1-J. 



THK DispiJTK : Seller declined the interest checli on the ground, first, 

 that buyer was only entitird to sixty days' free tirue from d:ite of ship- 

 ment, inasmuch as the conditions under wliidi lie had offered tliirty days 

 additional were not complied with, and that therefore buyer shotild pay 

 interest for all tnne talien from due date (sixty days from date of invoice) 

 lo date checli was received; and, second, that the rate of interest should 

 be S% which was rate he had actually paid his Ijanls for carrying tlie 

 account. 



Buyer contended lliat in the first instance the commission representative 

 of the seller assured liim on .lanuary S that prompt shipment would be 

 made and that relyiug on ttiis he immediately sold tlie same to his cus- 

 tomer for similar delivery. When seller later advisfd that there would be 

 some delay, buyer agreed hoping that delivery would still be made in time 

 to meet his customer's needs. This was not accomplished, and buyer was 

 forced to accept his customer's refusal of the shipment. He contended 

 both he and seller were at fault ; the latter by reason of promise made by 

 his agent, which misled buyer. He accordingly resold the car at a sacri- 

 lice in price and only asUed seller to absorb the extra time allowed and 

 which he contended should he allowed irrespective of the fact that he 

 liad technically failed to fully comiily with the conditions of seller's exten- 

 sion offer. lie furtheruiore contended that interest should be allowed up 

 lo date remiUance was mailed rather than to date of its receipt, and that 

 he was only liable to pay the legal rate in Pennsylvania, or 6%. 



Tin; Decision ; Held : The evidence submitted shows conclusively that 

 seller complied with contract in every particular and seller should be justly' 

 entitled to interest on past due account. 



Held further : That, inasmuch as buyer did not attempt to cancel order 

 or to refuse the shipment until about one month from date of shipment, 

 and as buyer failed to furnish suitable acceptance and, therefore, made no 

 subsequent contract, the original contract remained in force. Therefore, 

 it is 



Held : ^Tliat buyer not having complied with the terms as to payment, 

 sliould pay interest for all time taken after sixty days from date of ship- 

 ment up to July 20 (date seller received checli) or seventy-two days, at 

 0% which is the local rate in Penusyh-ania. The amount, therefore, due 

 seller by buyer is found to be $43.18. 



Decision in Transit Car Dispute 



The Facts ; In this case, the liuyer. a wholesaler in Mississippi, pur- 

 chased from a w'bolesaler-manufacturer. in Alabama, who operates a 

 Transit Planing Will, a car of lumber to be consigned to Buyer's order 

 at a point in New Yorli State. As a matter of convenience in his business, 

 Seller follows the practice of consigning all or most of his cars to recon- 

 signing points for diversion to final destination. He so handled this ship- 

 ment and notified the Buyer of that fact when sending him invoice and 

 stated that exchange bill of lading would be supplied as soon as received, 

 the Seller absorbing the reconsigning charge. The Buyer thereupon offered 

 no objection to this manner of handling, but asked Seller to notify the 

 agent at Cairo to accept Buyer's reconsigning directions in lieu of Seller's, 

 so that Buyer could at same time change name of consignee to that of his 

 customer. This the Seller did promptly and instructions were given to the 

 agent by Buyer. It then developed that, while the car was en route from 

 Seller's plant to Cairo, and before reconsigning instructions were received 

 by the agent, an embargo was placed against the final destination specified 

 and therefore shipment could not lie forwarded to same. The Buyer was 

 unable to do otherwise than to let car remain at Cairo until the embargo 

 was lifted sometime later. Meanwhile .flOS.OO penalty and storage charges 

 accrued, which Buyer charged to Seller and deducted same in settlement. 



The Dispute : The Buyer contended that Seller breached the contract 

 when he failed to bill the car in the first instance through to the final 

 destination specified in the order, there being no embargo in effect on date 

 shipment moved; and that, having failed to bill the car as ordered, should 

 absorb all the demurrage that accrued. He furthermore contended that 

 his having taken the matter of reconsigning out of the hands of the Seller 

 in nowise affected the situation ilue to the fact that embargo was placed 

 before Seller's instructions reached Cairo, The Seller contended that he 

 had just handled a previous shipment on the same order for the same 

 destination in the sjune manner, expect same was billed to and recon- 

 signed at Herrick, III., and that no olijection to this method of handling 

 was made; neither was Seller cautioneil a.gainst this practice when Buyer 

 ordered the additional car on the order. Also that Buyer accepted this 

 method of shipment when he requested the privilege of reconsigning same, 

 whereas, If unsatisfactory, he should have then refused to accept shipment 

 by this method and thus afforded Seller an opportunity to make other dis- 



position and refill Buyer's order when embargo was lifted, no special time 

 of sliiiunent having been specified. 



The l)Er-isio.\ : HKT.D, 1st : That Seller breached the contract when he 

 failed Iff bill the i-ar in <|uestion through from bis mill to the final destina- 

 tion specified in the order. 



'^"H : That the Buyer waived the Seller's breach of contract when he 

 requested that the Seller should instrtict the railroail to honor his recon- 

 signing instructions. 



3rd ; That the detention charges in controversy accrued while, the Ctir 

 was under the direct control of the Buyer. 



4th : That the Buyer is owing to the Seller the amount in controversy. 

 •SIO.I.OO. which is the amount of the detention charges 



Pertinent Information 



Statement of the Ownership, Management, Circulation, Etc., Re- 

 quired bv the Act of Congress of August 24, 1912 



Of IlAItlMVOoli ItKcuUli. published s-lnl-liinnl Illy at l_'llieiii;ci. 111., for October 

 1. 1021: 

 State of 

 County 



Before mc, a Notary 

 personally appeared E. 



f Illinois.) 

 of Cook.f"" 



Public, in and for the State and county aforesaid, 

 W. Meeker, who. having been duly sworn accord- 

 ing to law, deposes and says that lie is the Editor of the Hardwood 

 Record, and that the following is. to the best of his know'ledge and belief, 

 a true statement of the ownership, management (and if a daily paper, the 

 circulation), etc., of the aforesaid publication for the date shown in the 

 above caption, required by the -Act of -Vugust 24, 1912. embodied in Section 

 443, Postal Laws and Kegulations. printed on the reverse of this form, 

 to-wit : 



1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing 

 <'ditoi-ial and business managers are : 



Name of — PostofBce address — 



Publislier — The Hardwood Company. 537 So. Dearborn St.. Chicago, III. 

 Editor— E. W. Meeker, 5.37 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, HI. 

 Managing Editor — None. 

 P.usiness Managers — E. W. Meeker and II. F. Ake. 



2. That the owners are (Give names and addresses of individual owners. 

 or. if a corporation, give its name and the names and addresses of stock- 

 holders owning or holding 1 per cent or more of the total amount of stock) : 



C. W. Defebaugb. 431 So. Dearborn St.. Chicago, HI. 

 E. 'W. Meeker, 537 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, III. 

 H. F. Ake, 537 So. Dearborn St.. Chicago. III. 



3. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders 

 owning or holding 1 per cent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, 

 or other securities are (if there are none, so state) — None. 



4. That the two paragraphs next above, giving the names of the owners. 

 stockholders, and security holders, if any. contain not only the list of stock- 

 holders and security holders as the.v appear upon the books of the com- 

 pany, but also, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears 

 upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary rela- 

 tion, the name of the person or corporation for whom such tinistee is 

 acting, is given: also that the said two paragraphs contain statements 

 embracing affiant's full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and 

 conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not 

 appear upon the books of the company as trustee, hold stock and securi- 

 ties in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner; and this affiant 

 has no reason to believe that any other person, association, or corporation 

 has any interest, direct or indirect, In the said stock, bonds, or other securi- 

 ties than as so stated by him. 



5. That the average number of copies of each issue of this publication 

 sold or distributed, through the mails or otherwise, to paid subscribers 



during the six months preceding the date shown about is . (This 



information is required from daily publications only.) 



(Signed) E. W. Meeker, Editor. 



Sworn to and subscribed before me this twenty-first day of September, 

 1921. 



[SEAL.] , F. D. Stacp, 



Notary Public. 

 (My commission expires Nov. 10, 1923.) 



Reforestation of France 



Before the war France possessed approximately 185,000,000 acres of 

 productive forests. The bulk of these forests, about 177.000,000 acres, 

 were in private ownership, while 3,000,000 acres were owned by the state, 

 and 5,000,000 acres were in the possession of the communes. 



The war wrought great havoc with the French forests. Large areas 

 were totally destroyed throtigh fire, while the forests back of the fire zone 

 were heavily drawn upon for firewood, trench timber and other necessities. 

 After the armistice the water and for?st board of France, which Is the 

 national body clothed with authority over the forests and international 

 waterways, took up the problem of reforestation with vigor and great 

 energy. The authorities admit, however, that given the most favorable 



