Pertinent Legal Findings 



V^'j 



LOOOINO BATLBOAO NOT "COMMON CARBIEa" 



\ luiiiliT ■•oini>aiiy o|'.'riitin(; :i riiilron.l fur tlic miIo purpose of 

 ..,.-> lUj; its o»vii loKs is not a Lommoii carrier, so as to be bound 

 to receive frci(tbt or passengerH. (Oregon Supreme Court, Ander- 

 son vs. Smith-Towers Logging Company, 139 Pacific Reporter, 736.) 

 BIOHT TO BESCnfD lUMBEB SAIJBS OONTRAOT 



Wlion a contract for a sale of Innibcr calls for ilolivcrics in in- 

 stallments and periodical payments, either party may rescind the 

 entire contract for default on the part of the other respecting any 

 installment, except that one cannot complain of a default which 

 he ha.s himself induced, as where a seller of lumber makes default 

 in deliveries, and the buyer withholds payments to secure payment 

 of damages for the seller's breach. (Cnlifornia Supreme Court, 

 California Sugar i- White Pine Agency vs. Pcnoynr, 139 Pacific 

 Reporter. 671.) 



ENTOBCEMENT OF LIEN CLAIMS IN ILLINOIS 



I'nder the Illinois lien law an owner of a building will be 

 protected against claims of materialmen in making payments to 

 the contractor on sworn statements as to the amount due the ma- 

 terialmen although the statements be false, unless the owner 

 is aware of such falsity. To preserve rights against the owner, the 

 materialmen must give him independent notice of the amounts 

 due them. (Illinois Supreme Court, Knickerbocker Ice Company 

 \?^. Ilalsey Brothers Company. 104 Northeastern Reporter, 665.) 

 BESPONSIBILITY CONCEBNING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS 



In recently holding that where a railway company receives 

 carload shipments under a bill of lading calling for delivery at 

 a point in another state, but under an agreement to the effect that 

 on their arrival at that place they shall be diverted to points be- 

 yond on connecting lines of railroad, at through rates computed 

 from the original place of shipment, the company is liable for 

 loss arising on such connecting lines, within the meaning of the 

 Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act which makes 

 an initial carrier of an interstate shipment responsible for ship- 

 ments on connecting lines the same as on its own line, the Illinois 

 Supreme Court recently said, in the case of Gamble-Robinson Com- 

 mission Company vs. I'nion Pacific Railway Company, 104 North- 

 eastern Reporter, 666: 



This Is substantially what was held In Parker-Bell Lumber Company vs. 

 Great Northern Hallway Company, 69 Washington 123, 124 Pacific 389, 

 41 L. K. A. CS. S.) 1064. In that case there was a shipment of shingles 

 over the Great Northern railroad from Slsco, Wash., to Kankakee, 111. 

 It made no further agreement or undertaking to deliver them anywhere 

 else. Upon arrival of the shingles at Kankakee over the Chicago, Indiana 

 & Southern Itallroad, which was the final connecting road over which 

 the shipment was made, at the request of the owner of the shingles, 

 the last nnmed railroad diverted them to Palisades Park, N. J., Issued a 

 new bin of lading, and forwarded the shingles over a new line of connect- 

 ing carriers. It was held the liability of the initial carrier ceased with 

 the delivery of the shingles at Kankakee. We do not understand that 

 decision to be in confilct with the views we have expressed. In that case 

 the initial carrier never, orally or by bill of lading, agreed to e«rry the 

 shingles to any destination other than Kankakee. 



LOSS OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS 



The provision in the Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act, 

 which makes the initial carrier of a through interstate shipment 

 liable for loss occtirring on connecting lines, does not make a rail- 

 way company which receives a shipment for delivery at a point 

 on another line of railroad in another state liable for loss of the 

 shipment while in the hands of the delivering railway company 

 as warehouseman, aa distinguished from a carrier. This impor- 

 tant decision was lately announced by the Kansas Supreme Court 

 in a case where a shipment, through mistake of the shipper, was 

 consigned to a point in Pennsylvania when it was intended to 

 send the shipment to a town of the same name in New York. 

 On arrival of the car in Pennsylvania, the local freight agent of 

 the debvering company mailed notice to the consignee at that 

 address, and later reported the shipment as unclaimed. On the 

 —32— 



tilth d;.\ alter the i ar arn'veil, it uud its euiiteiits were destroyed 

 by fire, and the slii]>per sued the initial carrier, relying upon the 

 act of Congress above mentioned. But, the Kansas Supreme Court 

 decided that the Carmack Amendment must be interpreted as be- 

 ing restricted to cases where freight is lost or injured while stilt 

 in the custody of a railway uompany as carrier. It is fairly infer- 

 able from the decision that, if the loss had occurred before tbo 

 consignee hnil had reasonable opportunity to remove the freight 

 after notice of its arrival had been mailed, the initial carrier 

 woulil have been liable. But it is held that, uniler well cstab- 

 lishcil principles of law, the delivering railway company must bo 

 deemed to have ceased to be a carrier ond to have become a 

 warehouseman after lapse of a rcosonablc time for removal of 

 the shipment, and as such not to be liable for loss not resulting 

 from iicfrligenee attril iitable to it. 



AMOUNT BECOVEBABLE FOE INJUBY 



.*l,iKI(i is not e.\ccssive recovery for iiii)iairrnent of an employe's 

 eyesight in an accident attributable to negligence for which his 

 employer is responsible. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, Stearns 

 Coal & Lumber Company vs. Tuggle, 164 ."^(luthwostern Reporter 

 74.) 



INJUBY TO ADJOININO PEOPEETY 



An owner of a sawmill is liable for injury to adjoining prop- 

 erty caused by partly burned sawdust transferred into cinders 

 or charcoal being blown upon such property, to the discomfort 

 and annoyance of the owner. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 

 White vs. Halscy Lumber Company, 81 Southeastern Reporter 11.) 



BESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING MACHINERY 



A lumber manufacturer is liable for death of a lathing machine 

 operator caused by a piece of lumber being hurled back by a saw, 

 if the machine had been permitted for some time to remain in a 

 defective condition which could have been readily remedied with- 

 out impairing the efficiency of the machine. (North Carolina 

 Supreme Court, Arnsley vs. John L. Roper Lumber Company, 81 

 Southeastern Reporter 4.) 



CONCLUSIVENESS OF OFFICIAL SCALE 



When timber cut under a contract is scaled by a certain scaler, 

 his scale is conclusive against both parties to the contract, in the 

 absence of fraud or mistake. (Michigan .Supreme Court, Brooks 

 vs. Bellows, 146 Northwestern 311.) 



SELLER'S LIEN INFEBIOB TO CHATTEL MORTGAGE 



The lien of a seller of sawmill machinery to ?ceure payment 

 of the purchase price is inferior to a mortgage previously given in 

 good faith by the purchaser covering all machinery in the mill, 

 including all which might be subsequently installed. (Michigan 

 Supreme Court, Presque Isle Sash & Door Company vs. Reichel, 

 146 Northwestern Reporter 231.) 



WHAT CONSTITUTES HAZABDOUS EMPLOYMENT 



In a suit for injury to a minor while working at a double-end 

 tenoner, the jury were warranted in finding that he was engaged 

 in a "hazardous employment," within the meaning of a law 

 prohibiting the employing of boys under eighteen years old in 

 such employment, where it appeared that he was required to stand 

 in a space about three feet wide between revolving belts. (Mich- 

 igan Supreme Court, Radic vs. Thomas Jackson & Co., 146 North- 

 western Reporter 136.) 



ITEMS OF DAMAGE FOE BEEACH OF CONTEACT 



In awarding damages to a lumber company arising from de- 

 ficiency in the quality of building material bought by it for deliv- 

 ery direct to a third person, it was proper to include an amount 

 covering the company's expense in adjusting the claim of its 

 customer on account of the defective quality. (Connecticut Su- 

 preme Court of Errors, Coast Central Milling Company vs. Russell 

 Lumber Company, SO Atlantic Reporter, 898.) 



