September 25, 1915. 



Pertinent Legal Findings 



Queries on (/uestions arixmri on anij points inr„liin<j the law as it is applied to lumbering and allied industries mil he given proper 

 expert attention throuph tins department if sulimilted to Hardwood Record. There will be no charc/e for such serVice, but Hardwood 

 Ukcurd reserves the rujht to puldish questions and answers without designtitimi names or location of inquiries unless sveciflcallu requested 

 not do do so. ' • f i a i 



Power of Company's Manager 

 Persons dealing with the j;<^iii'i:il "uuiager of a croiporation have 

 no right to assume that he has any authority to bind the company 

 in transactions not within the scope of the corporation 's business 

 operations. Tlierefore, a company engaged in buying and selling 

 lumber is entitled to repudiate a purchase of bank stock made by its 

 manager with funds of the corporation. (South Dakota Supreme 

 Court, Porter vs. Lien, 1.53 Noithwcstern Reporter, 90;".) 



Vermont's New Floatage Law 



A law enacted at the recently adjourned session of the Vermont 

 legislature provides a method for assessing damages done by float- 

 ing "lumber, such as spars, masts, square timber, pulp wood or 

 other lumber, logs or sawed timber." The provisions can be found in 

 full as chapters 140, Laws of Vermont, 1915, pages 221, 222. 



Liability for Firing Nearby Property 

 In a recent decision, tlie ifaryland court ot ajipe:ils lioMs that the 

 amount of care which must be observed to prevent escape of fire to 

 adjacent premises depends upon the circumstances of each particular 

 case; the law requiring the diligence to be proportioned to the danger 

 involved. This principle operates to the benefit of lumber manu- 

 facturing companies and owners of standing timber, when their 

 property is endangered by the operation of steam engines on adjoin- 

 ing lands. In the Maryland case, the rule was invoked in a suit 

 against a sawmill operator for injury to standing timber on an 

 adjacent tract. (Hodges vs. Baltininrc Engine Company, 94 Atlantic 

 Eeporter, 1040.) 



Right to Explain Written Contract 



Although a party to a contract which has been reduced to writing 

 will not be permitted to show that there was a verbal understanding 

 between the parties at the time the agreement was entered into con- 

 trary to the clear meaning of the written contract, wliere a logging 

 contract proves to be ambiguous or uncertain on a giveu point, oral 

 evidence will be admitted by a court to e.xplain away the ambiguity 

 or uncertaintj'. (Minnesota supreme court, 'Council vs. Ward, 1.5;i 

 Northwestern Reporter, 865.) 



Effect of Michigan Factory Act 



The Michigan law, which requires all saws, "planers, cogs, set 

 screws, gearing and machinery of every description" to be properly 

 guarded when deemed necessary by the factory inspector, is broad 

 enough to require safeguarding of set .screws on chucks used on a 

 rotary veneer peeler. An employe operating a machine required to 

 be guarded under this law does not assume risks of injury arising 

 from the employer's failure to comply with the statute. (Michigan 

 supreme court, Edward vs. Grand Haven Basket Factory, 153 North- 

 western Reporter, 776.") 



Delivery of Lumber Sold 



It often occurs in the trade that lumber contracted to be sold is 

 attached while still in the seller 's custody by one of his creditors, 

 and dispute arises as to the right of the buyer to assert ownership 

 of the property and thus defeat the attachment. This was the ease 

 in the recent suit of Freedman vs. Avery, 94 Atlantic Reporter, 969, 

 passed upon by the Connecticut supreme court of errors. The court 

 holds that there was insufficient evidence of that ' ' actual, visible and 

 continued change of possession ' ' which is required by the law in 

 order to defeat attachment of the property as belonging to the 

 seller. The main facts unsuccessfully relied upon by the purchaser 

 to establish his ownership were that he inspected the lumber in the 

 seller's yard and placed his business cards on the piles, and that he 

 offered to sell the lumber to third parties as being his property. 



Removing Timber "Expeditiously" 



Deeds to standing timber in Arkansas required the purchaser to cut 

 and remove the trees ' ' as expeditiously as possible, ' ' and the owner 



of the land afterwards sought to forfeit the right of removal on the 

 ground that this condition had not been complied with. Construing 

 the quoted phrase, the Arkansas supreme court holds that it did not 

 require the purchaser to cease operations on nearby lands, closer to 

 his mills, and, immediately and without regard to expense and trou- 

 ble, build the necessary logging roads to remove the timber covered 

 by the deeds. It is decided that since both parties knew, when the 

 deeds were made, the location of the purchaser's mills, how the tim- 

 ber was to be carried to them for manufacture, etc., these circum- 

 stances must be considered in determining what amounted to removal 

 of the timber "expeditiously." (Burbridge vs. Arkansas Lumber 

 Company, 17S Soutliwcstcrn Keporter, 304.) 



Bank's Right to Charge Credit Back 



That a bank has no unlimited right to charge back a credit once 

 entered on its books, in accordance «ith previous agreement, is 

 illustrated by a recent decision handed down by the Texas court of 

 civil appeals. Defendant bank agreed with a lumber manufacturer 

 to provide money for his business operations by making advances on 

 drafts drawn through the bank with i)ills of lading attached. Under 

 this agreement the bank crediU'd to (ilaintifl', to whom the manufac- 

 turer was indebted for timber, certain amounts on delivery of bills 

 of lading to the bank covering shipments to purchasers from the man- 

 ufacturer. But when the purchasers failed to take up the drafts 

 attached to the bills of lading, the bank charged back the credits so 

 entered in favor of plaintiff. This, the Texas court holds, the bank 

 had no right to do. Under the circumstances, the moment the 

 credits were entered, according to previous agreement, the bank be- 

 came plaintiflf's debtor to the amount of the credits and could not 

 afterwards relieve itself from obligations to plaintiff. (Davis vs. 

 Peoples State Bank, 178 Southwestern Reporter, 671.) 



Carrier's Right to Prepayment of Charges 



When a railway company has made a contract for through trans- 

 portation of a lumber shipment, it cannot afterwards modify the 

 terms on which the freight charges are to be paid before delivery, 

 ac(iording to the opinion expressed by the Texas court of civil appeals 

 in the late case of E. D. Jones Lumber Company vs. Quanah, Acme 

 & Pacific Railway Company, 178 Southwestern Reporter, 858. Plain- 

 tiff delivered lumber to defendant for shipment to a point beyond 

 the line of defendant's road, on condition that payment of the freight 

 charges might be demanded before delivery to the consignee. De- 

 fendant carried the shipment to the end of its line and then refused 

 to deliver to the terminal carrier until payment of the charges. This 

 the company had no right to do, the court decides, having impliedly 

 contracted to extend credit up to the time the lumber was ready for 

 delivery to the consignee. And it is further held that if the com- 

 pany were notified, pending the holding up of the shipment at the 

 end of its line, that the lumber was needed for a specific purpose, the 

 company became liable for special loss sustained in consequence of 

 delay in delivery. The court of civil appeals adds that the statutes 

 of Texas which prescribe penalties for unjust discrimination on the 

 part of railway companies extends to tonnage, as well as carload, 

 shipments. 



Amount Recoverable for Timber Burned 



The damages recoverable against a railway company for loss of 

 timber by fire resulting from the company 's permitting combustible 

 brush, etc., to remain on its right of way are measurable by the 

 excess of the value of the timber immediately before the fire above 

 its value immediately afterwards. (Delaware superior court, Pon- 

 der vs. Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Company, 94 

 Atlantic Reporter, 514.) 



Every recurring winter season is a reminder that the more of the 

 factory lumber that can be kept under shelter the better. 



—27— 



