Juiif 2.". iiii:.. 



Pertinent Legal Findings 



Use of Private Spur Tracks 



When a railway oompany <'on:<tuict.s n privato spur traik for tlir 

 oxdusivo use of a lumber eonipaiiy, it in undor no duty to furnish 

 cars to a third person on that traok, although they are ordered for 

 delivery of timber products to the lumber company, holds the Texas 

 court of civil appeals, in tlio case of Moore vs. Beaumont, Sour Lake 

 & Western Railway Company, 174 Southnostorn Reporter S-14. After 

 pointing out that third persons could claim no benefits under a 

 contract for construction of a privato spur track, the court says: 



Kallroads arc only required liy hiw to furnish cars for the shipment of 

 freight at stations or points on their rond provided for the service of the 

 public, or where the railroads are In the habit of acccptlnR frclRht from 

 any person otTcrlnK same for transportation. The spur In question was a 

 private track for the sole and special use of the luiiiher company, and was 

 under the eicluslve control of that company. The railroad company 

 could not, without vlolatini; its contract with the lumber company, which 

 bad assisted In the construction of the spur, place cars thereon for the 

 use of shippers (icn'Tiilly, unless hy piTTiilsslciTi vl said company. 

 Life Tenant's Right to Dispose of Timber 



One who merely owns a life interest in laud has no right to sell 

 timber standing on the land, although he may make reasonable use 

 of the same for domestic purposes. (Kentucky court of appeals, 

 McCoy vs. Ferguson, i'r> Southwestern Reporter 23.) 

 Delivery of Freight on Private Tracks 



When carload shipments of freight are billed for delivery to the 

 consignee on his private switch track, the delivering railway company 

 is not entitled to payment of the freight charges, nor can demurrage 

 charges accrue until the cars have been placed on that track. Put- 

 ting the cars on public delivery tracks at the point of destination 

 and notifying the consignee of their arrival is insufficient tender of 

 delivery. (Massachusetts supreme judicial court, N. Y., N. H. & H. 

 R. R. Co. vs. Porter, 108 Northeastern Reporter 499.) 

 Aspects of Sales Contracts 



When a contract to sell commodities does not specify any time 

 for payment of the price, and mutual understanding on that point 

 cannot be inferred from the prerious course of dealings between the 

 parties, or other circumstances, payment of the price and delivery are 

 due at the same time, and the buyer's failure to tender payment 

 then excuses refusal by the seller to deliver. If there is no express nor 

 implied agreement as to place of delivery, it will be presumed to 

 have been understood that delivery should be made at the seller's 

 place of business. When goods sold are to be delivered in install- 

 ments, the buyer's failure to pay for installments already delivered 

 justifies the seller in rescinding the contract as to the remaining 

 deliveries. (Connecticut supreme court of errors, Bridgeport Hard- 

 ware Manufacturing Co. vs. Bounoil, 93 Atlantic Reporter 674.) 

 Time for Delivery Under Contract 



If a contract to sell logs or other timber products calls for delivery 

 of a stated quantity before a fixed date, deliverable in installments 

 on four weeks' notice, on condition that the first delivery be ordered 

 out by the buyer by a certain date, failure of the buyer to call for 

 the first installment by that time gives the seller the full contract 

 period in which to deliver it. (Alabama supreme court, Hallett 

 Manufacturing Co. vs. Curjel & Co., (!7 Snutlinn Kcpnrter !)95:) 

 Statutory Liability for Fires 



Under the statute in force in North Carolina, requiring an owner 

 of timber land to give two days' notice in writing to adjoining own 

 ers of intention to fire his woodlands, one who fails to give such 

 notice is liable for damages caused to adjacent property owners, 

 even though oral notice be given the day the fire is started. (North 

 Carolina supreme court, Stanland vs. Rourk, 84 Southeastern Re 

 porter 845.) 



Lessee's Rights in Spur Track 



After constructing a spur track to serve a lumber yard, a railway 

 company is under legal obligation to furnish shipping facilities to 

 a lessee of that yard on the same terms as the leasing owner. A 

 railway company is not entitled to base a refusal to deliver shipments 

 on a spur track on the ground that the same come from persons or 

 localities not served by the company. 



Ground for Avoiding Contract 



According to the holding of tho United fcitates circuit court of 

 appeals for the eighth circuit, a company is entitleil to repudiate a 

 contract made for it by its purchasing agent, on iliscovery that he 

 was induced to make it on an understanding that he should receive 

 a secret commission from tho other party to the agreement. But the 

 right to rescind the contract on this ground is lost unless promptly 

 and clearly expressed on discovery of the fraud. (Ripley vs. Jai'kson 

 Zinc & Lead Company, 22\ Fo.ler.-il Rcjiortcr 209.) 

 Ownership of Cut Timber 



Timber cut but not removed from the land within the time speci- 

 fied for cutting and removal in the contract of sale belongs to the 

 buyer, if it has been jiaid for. (Texas court of civil appeals, 

 Broocks vs. Moss, 175 Southwestern Reporter 791.) 



Time for Delivery of Goods Sold 



When a contract to sell pursouaJ property specifics a time for 

 delivery, the provision is deemed to be regarded by both parties as 

 .in essential condition of the agreement. Ilence, under a contract 

 to deliver goods August 15, the buyer was entitled to reject delivery 

 tendered September 28. (North Dakota supreme court. Sunshine 

 Cloak & Suit Company vs. Roqucttc Brothers, 152 Northwestern 

 Reporter 359.) 



Duty to Warn Mill Employee 



A lumber manufacturing company is liable for injury to a mill 

 employee, caused by reversal of live rollers by the employee in 

 charge thereof without warning to him, while he was engaged in tho 

 performance of his work. (Arkansas supreme court. Trailer vs. 

 Poinsett Lumber & Manufacturing Company, 175 Southwestern Re- 

 porter, 522.) 



Rights in Removing Timber 



Under a conveyance of standing timber of certain dimensions, 

 with privilege in the purchaser to cut and remove the trees, he is 

 entitled to destroy timber under the specified dimension when reason- 

 ably necessary in adoption of approved methods of removing the 

 trees conveyed. (United States circuit court of appeals, fourth 

 circuit; Vosburg Company vs. Watts; 221 Federal Reporter 402.) 



Right to Lien for Lumber Sold 

 One who sells lumber that is not actually incorporated in a build- 

 ing, being merely used temporarily in making forms for concrete 

 construction, is not entitled to enforce a mechanic's lien against the 

 building. (Wisconsin supreme court, Wiedenbeck-Dobelin Company 

 vs. Honey, 152 Northwestern Reporter 479.) 



Broken Promises to Receive Bids 



Even if a merchant who was about to buy store fixtures promised 

 to notify plaintiff as to when bids would be received for the work, 

 so that plaintiff might put in a bid for a fixture manufacturer on a 

 commission basis, failure to give such notice did not render the 

 merchant liable to jilaintiff in damages as for breach of contract, 

 since there was no consideration for the promise, since the merchant 

 would not be bound to accept any bid that plaintiff might have sub- 

 mitted, and since the manufacturer represented by plaintiff might 

 not have been willing to have entered into a contract on terms satis- 

 factory to the merchant. (North Carolina supreme court, Wooten 

 vs. S. R. Biggs Drug Company, 85 Southeastern Reporter 140.) 



Aspects of Sales Contracts 



When a contract to sell goods calls for delivery by a specified 

 time, time will be regarded as an essential element of the agreement, 

 and if the seller fails to comply with that requirement, the buyer is 

 entitled to rescind the contract. Before the seller can recover dam- 

 ages against the purchaser on tho theory of repudiation of the 

 contract by the latter, he must show that he was ready and able to 

 make delivery according to all the terms of tho agreement. [In 

 other words, when one agrees to sell a stated quantity of hardwood 

 lumber of specified grade and dimensions, the buyer's repudiation 

 of the contra<'t will give the seller no right to legal relief unless 

 he shows that he was ready and able to deliver that kind and quan- 

 tity of lumber in compliance with the contract.] (Delaware supe- 

 rior court, Weishut vs. Layton & Layton, 93 Atlantic Reporter 1057.) 



