HARDWOOD RECORD 



\Vi>IN l.iiinlM'r riiiij|Miiiy. Mi'iioiniiioo : Kiirl (.'rossninn of ttio A. K. Ofti- 

 niii Salt & I.uni)i><r ('utii)innr. Omml Kn|>ii1(i, Mich.: S. N. IlurriHon, 

 rtv<-ivi>r for IIk' \Vi<miiii>iii Mirlii(n>ii Rnilroml, nnd H. R. Moiillon, 

 inaurniuv nginirv luiiiitM^ss, tlit> In.st two nt M>'nuiiiiii(<<>, Midi. Tlii> 

 happv crowd hml jiint roltirnod from n two wp<>ks* cruise in tin* (ioor- 

 jfifin Rny on A <V WolN' i.riviit.- vnHit " IsuiIm-IIh." 



' ilv 1.-,, tli.re WHS lK>rn to Mr. nnd Mr.«i. 11. B. Kiirlo 



1. 1 ll.'rillMM.Mll.-. .Ml.'h.. II S.'\.-M |..>llt|.| |M,X. I.I..I lu S\<. nil. I MiK. .M. 



.1. Fox of Iron Mnuntnin, Mirli., nn <>i);lit |>ound Imv. Mr. Fox in 

 connectod with the Von Plnten liUmbor Cuniininv. 



CnrdN linvp lM<on ninileil iiniioiincini; tho niipronrliin); wo<ldinf{ of 

 K. •'. Pnwh-y nnd .Mikh Ruth InBroJinni of W'niiiuiii. Wig., which will 

 take jdnce on .Iiilv 'jn, lilU, Mr. nnd Mm. Dnwlry will 1* at home 

 after St-|.teiiilier 1. 



T A!y:>'A!»i!A'iV>tL'gaCT : 



■wwiN ! >xvv« ' ^5aK ! R ' >viM X ' )\ ' ja n M^!jE)v ^:;!WK<a;:«^^ ^ 



Pertinent Legal Findings 



"^ 



RESPONSIBILITY FOB FALL OF LUMBER PILE 



fall of a pile of liimlH-r near which he was working, if it were iii- 

 secorcly piled. (Washington Supreme Court, Mattson vs. Eureka 

 f<»'lnr Lnmher & Shingle Comjiany, 140 Pacific Reporter 'A'7.) 

 WHEN ORAL LICENSE IS IRREVOCABLE 

 I iral pirniis-iiiii given liv a landowner to a liimlier company to 

 construct a railroad across the land or to maintain any other 

 improvement thereon in conducting logging operations is not rev- 

 ocable by him or his successor after the liiinl>er company has con- 

 structed such improvements nt great expense in reliance upon such 

 jiermissjon, although no consideration may have been paid therefor. 

 ^Florida Supreme Court, Albrecht vs. Drake Lumber Company, 0.1 

 - ■ it hern Reporter Sf*. ) 



WHEN WATER COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR FIRE LOSS 

 A rweuf de -ision of the Arkansas supreme court draws attention to 

 :in unjust state of the law which permits a water company to receive 

 pay for service to be rendered by affording fire protection, and then 

 to avoid liability for a fire loss resulting from its failure to live up to 

 the agreement, by the simple process of inserting a stipulation in 

 the contract to the effect that it shall not be liable for loss sustained 

 by the consumer through insufficient water supply. The decision was 

 announceil in the case of Jones House Furnishing Company vs. 

 Arkansas Water Company, 1(56 Southwestern Reporter 557, and holds 

 that a water company's contract with a city to supply water at public 

 hydrants for fire protection docs not enure to the benefit of a private 

 property owner; and that the company is not liable under a contract 

 »rith a private consumer for loss caused by fire through failure to 

 supply sufficient water for fire protection unless the contract absolutely 

 required a quantity of water which was not furnished. The court 

 says on the second point: "The law therefore appears to be that if 

 a water company enters into a contract with a private owner to 

 furnish water for a specific purpose or any specific quantity it is 

 liable for all damages proximately causeil by the breach of such con- 

 tract: but it also appears to be settled that the liabilities of a water 

 company are such only as are created by the contract entered into for 

 furnishing water." Under this decision a waterworks company 

 escapes liability for failure to supply water for an automatic fire 

 sprinkler system as agreed when the contract contains a clause to 

 the effect that there shall be no liability for failure to supply 

 sufficient water. In reaching this decision the Arkansas supreme 

 court cites a Xew Jersey decision to the same general effect. In 

 that case a water company agreed to furnish a lumber company 

 "water for fire protection" at the rate of $15 a year but subject 

 to the niles and regulations of the company. One of the rules 

 declared that the company should not be liable for any loss result- 

 ing from failure to supply sufficient water for fire protection and 

 this contract was decided to exempt the water company from liability 

 for a loss sustained by the lumber company. 



The courts are not to be blamed for these decisions which merely 

 apply the general rule that private contracts must be enforced accord- 

 ing to their terms but the cases cited would seem to suggest the 

 desirability of legislation declaring invalid any agreement whereby 

 a water company attempts to absolve itself from liability for damages 

 resulting from failure to provide a fire pressure contracted for. 

 Every consideration which sustains the legal principle that a rail 



ivay cuiiipany cnnnot validly contract agaiiir<t its liability fur negligent 

 performance of n contrnct to trans|iort pcrsonti or ].ro|ierty applies 

 to n contract by a imlillc service corpipr.ilimi to .siipply water for 

 Jirotection of the lives ami property nl' the public aj;.iiiist fire. 

 CONCLUSIVENESS OF SCALER'S REPORT 

 Where a logging contrnct provides for scaling of logH by a certain 

 person it is not necessary that the agreement expressly jirovide that 

 his reports shall be conclusive in tlic absence of fraud or mistake, 

 in order that they shall be binding upon both parties to tho contract. 

 (United States Circuit Court of Appeals S<'cond Circuit; Connecticut 

 Valley Lumber Company vs. Stone; 21:.' Federal Reporter 713.) 

 RIGHT TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION 

 A miiniiip.TJity lias no iiuirc ri^;lit to iiiirciisonably interfere with 

 the use of a navigable strenni than has a private jierson and where n 

 town constructed a bridge over such a stream in such manner as to 

 unreasonably interfere with the floating of logs the owner of logs 

 was legally entitled to remove so much of the bridge as was reason- 

 ably necessary to remove the obstruction but he is linblc for any 

 unnecessary damage done to the bridge. (Maine Supreme Judicial 

 Court, Inhabitants of Marion vs. Tuell, 90 Atlantic Reporter 484.) 

 RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE OF CO-EMPLOYE 

 A limiber coiiijiany is liable for injury to one employe causeii by 

 negligence of another, if the latter were habitually incompetent for 

 the performance of his duties, and if the employer were chargeable 

 with notice of that fact. (North Carolina Supreme Court, Walters 

 vs. Durham Lumber Company, SI Southenstern Reporter 45.3.) 

 DUTY TO WARN INEXPERIENCED EMPLOYE 

 Although an eni). lover is under no leg;il duty to warn a youthful or 

 inexperienced employe against dangers incident to his work which are 

 known by the latter, it is actionable negligence to put a minor em- 

 ploye at work at dangerous woodworking machinery without giving 

 him such warning and instruction as is reasonably required by his 

 youth and inexperience, especially where the boy's parents have con- 

 sented to the employment in reliance upon the employer's promise to 

 give the boy proper warning. (North Carolina Supreme Court, Ensley 

 vs. Sylva Lumber & Manufacturing Co., SI Southeastern Reporter, 

 1010.) 



TIME FOR REMOVAL OF TIMBER BY PURCHASER 

 When a deed to standing timber with im interest in the land does 

 not specify when its removal must be coinin.riced or completed, the 

 law implies an understanding that the trees will be removed within 

 a reasonable time; and where such a conveyance required removal 

 within five years, unless the purchasers should iiay a certain amount 

 for each additional year until all the timber should be taken, and 

 twelve years elapsed without the trees l>eing removed or such pay- 

 ment being offered, the owner of the land was entitled to sue to 

 forfeit the conveyance without giving any notice to the purchaser 

 of the timber or his assignee. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 

 Minshew vs. Atlantic Coast Lumber Corporation, SI Southeastern Re- 

 porter lOL'".) 



RESPONSIBILITY FOB UNSAFE CONDITION OF PREMISES 

 An emidoyer is not responsible for injury to a workman who 

 slipped on a slideway on which oil hail been placed, unless the 

 slippery condition was known to the employer or had existed so long 

 that it should have been known. (Michigan Supreme Court, Meyer 

 vs. Grand Rapi.ls Chair Co., 147 Northwestern Reporter, 488.) 



