February '^o, mill 



Breach of Lumber Manufacturing Contracts 

 The S|>rin|;fK<ltl, Mo., court of ii|i|><mIs iipiiliitl the following riui"> 

 of Inw rwfiitlv in n suit involvinu lial.ilily of itn owner of timber 

 tor ' intiff to rut, Kiiw and dclivor n 



St^i' 



I - In certain 



>>nrd JUHtlfy 



1 amount on the 

 <llri>ct<'d plnlntlir 



t.Ml Ih.' IriHi.. <'tiir 



ni' ■ 

 d.r 



1 



tr 



net 

 Wn- 

 in< 

 dut 

 mri ' 



Is 



■ v 



ii ;;..,. . ;.4nt 



'iiilrncl. 



r, thf contrnctor 



nx damnROH. but 

 Icnr nnd rlofloltn 



(•'T llio breach. 



to r<-o»*iT luuri- tlinn a ■ 



proof an to what lUe 



(rbllllp« T«. Todd. ISd .- 



Right to Materialman's Lien 

 A sa.tli ami door coni|iiui_v nhicli furnisliod nintoriiils to a subcon- 

 tractor under a building improvement is not entitled to enforce a 

 lien ngninst the building, it appearing that the subcontractor nns not 

 authorized by the owner or tlie principal contractor to contract with 

 the sash and door company. (Delaware superior court, 'Wilmington 

 Sash * Door Company, vs. Nuttall, 95 Atlantic Reporter, 902.) Nor 

 is one who furnishes materials for the construction or improvement of 

 a school or other public building entitled to enforce a lien against the 

 building to secure payment for such materials, under the Texas me- 

 chanics' lien law. (Texas court of civil appeals, Oil City Iron Works 

 vs. Rice Common School District, 180 Southwestern Reporter, 112.) 



Demurrage on Lumber Shipments 

 Where delivery of lumber siiipped by rail necessitated partial 

 carriage by water and use of a barge to the destination, and 

 the consignee was notified of the arrival and that demurrage 

 would be charged on delay in removing the shipment, demurrage 

 at the rate of .$10 a day for the barge was properly imposed, 

 although the bill of lading made no specific provision for water 

 transportation. (New York supreme court, Levenson Wrecking 

 Company v« V Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 156 Xew York Siif.plenicnt, 

 650.) 



New Hampshire's Tax Law 

 Under the laws of New Hampshire, lumber generally is taxed 

 in the town where it is found on the 1st day of April. But when 

 it is on its way to market, or temporarily delayed on its way to 

 market, the owmer, if a resident of the state, by giving the requi- 

 site statement, may have it taxed in the town where he resides. 

 Lumber stacked at a railway siding pending future orders for it 

 and shipment to the ultimate purchasers was assessable April 1 

 in the town where it was found and not in another town where 

 the company which owned the lumber had its offices. (New Hamp- 

 shircs supreme court, Town of Colebrook vs. Berlin Mills Com- 

 pany, 96 Atlantic Reporter, .'501. ) 



North Carolina Labor Lien Law 

 A law enacted in North Carolina in 191.3 provides: "Every 

 person doing the work of cutting or sawing logs into lumber 

 • • * shall have a lien upon the said lumber for the amount of 

 wages due them, and the said lien shall have priority over all 

 other claims or liens upon said lumber, except as against the pur- 

 chaser for full value and without notice thereof." 



Construing this law in the case of Hogsed vs. Gloucester Lum- 

 ber Company, 87 Southeastern Reporter, .337, the North Carolina 

 supreme court held recently that the law extends to the following 

 classes of work: Mill hand piling lumber, mill hand inspecting 

 lumber from saw, all mill hands handling lumber, including sawyer, 

 lumber stacker, mill foreman, slabman, saw filer, engineer of the 

 mill engine, fireman at the mill boiler, lumber handler, edgerman, 

 jacker and piler. But the clause of the law, "doing the work 

 of cutting or sawing logs into lumber, does not include those en- 



-22— 



..'iigeil on trainii hauling log*, luch as the engineer, trimincrman, 

 dogger on carriage (unleoii this means on the saw carriage, in 

 which ease he would be engaged in cutting), flrrman on the log 

 train, conductor nnd braUi man im the Huinc, and others engaged 

 in bringing logs to the mill t<i bo thereafter snwed into plank by 

 those engaged in that sirvjii'. The men engaged in working on 

 the log train in any ca|>iirity, the night watchman and all con- 

 nected with the repairs to the machinery, or running the log train 

 or bringing in the logs, cannot be said to come within the descrip- 

 tion "engaged in the work of cutting or sawing logs into lumber." 



Shipping Contracts and the Anti-Trust Law 

 There was mi violation of the Tcxa.s anti trust law under tlio 

 following stated circumstances; according to the holding of the 

 Texas court of civil appeals in the case of Stephenson vs. St. 

 Louis Southwestern Railway Company, 181 Southwestern Reporter, 

 568: 



Defendant railroad company leased part of its right of way 

 to a lumber company under n contr.act which provided that the 

 latter should deliver to the railway company for carriage all 

 freight consigned to the lumber company by rail, provided that the 

 rates shoubl not exceed those of its competitiors, the purpose be- 

 ing that the railroad company should hare the longest available 

 haul of freight over its own lines. The agreement further re- 

 quired the lumber company to consign over the railroad company's 

 line all freight shipped out, and that failure to comply with those 

 stipulations should give the railway company the right to terminate 

 the agreement. 



The court held that, since the lumber company was not obligated 

 to ship its freight ovei the line of the railroad company unless 

 its rates should be as favorable as the charges of competing lines, 

 and since the railroad company might be unable to meet competi- 

 tion, the contract was not invalid under the anti-trust law, as 

 tending to stifl:- competition. 



Check as Final Settlement of Account 

 The appellate term of the New York supreme court had occas- 

 sion recently to point out the circumstances under which a cred- 

 itor '.s act in cashing a check marked as payment in full of an 

 account will preclude further claim under the particular account. 

 (Willson Brothers Lumber Company vs. Gardner Wood Company of 

 New York, 156 New York Supplement, 354.) 



Defendant ordered 19,000 feet of red heart lumber at $17 per M. 

 cash, less 2 per cent 10 days after arrival. On sawing the ma- 

 terial, defendant became dissatisfied with the quality and made 

 complaint that part of it was unfit for use, and in the course of 

 corresjiondence demanded a deduction of $70 from the price. This 

 was refused by plaintiff, who c.\presscd willingness to allow a de- 

 duction of .$19. Thereupon defendant mailed check for the agreed 

 price and freight, less $75, accompanied by a statement showing 

 full settlement for the lumber. Plaintiff retained and cashed the 

 check, but immediately wrote defendant declining to accept it as 

 final payment of the account, and afterwards brought suit to re- 

 cover $75. The trial court granted recovery, but the appellate 

 term reversed the judgment, holding that where there is an honest 

 dispute as to the amount due on an account after proper deduc- 

 tions, acceptance of a check tendered as full payment discharges 

 the account. It is only when there is no room for claim on the 

 part of the debtor to a deduction that a check "in full" will not 

 operat.e as full settlement unless for the amount actually due. 

 That is, where a buyer of goods is indebted to a fixed amount for 

 them and has no color of ground for claiming the debt to be less, 

 his arbitrary deduction from that amount and mailing of a check 

 for less than he owes will not prevent recovery of the balance ac- 

 tuall.v due, although the check may be sent as being in full settle- 

 ' ment. 



