158 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



such, as to make an unmistakable identification possible, but 

 if the language is ambiguous or uncertain the contract will 

 not be enforced. l If the description of the land on which 

 the trees stand is erroneously given the purchaser will 

 acquire no title to timber on land which did not belong to the 

 vendor, 2 or which belonged to only one of the vendors and 

 was not contemplated in the sale. 3 When the timber on a 

 certain piece of land or the amount needed for a certain pur- 

 pose is sold at a certain rate per piece or thousand feet, the 

 amount covered by the contract will not ordinarily be lim- 

 ited to the precise amount which the vendor agrees to de- 

 liver 4 but a contract for the sale of a certain number of 

 thousand feet or pieces which does not clearly contemplate 

 the sale of a certain lot or the amount needed for a specific 

 purpose will be held to embrace only the limited amount 

 more or less than that specified which might accidentally 

 be cut with the exercise of reasonable care. 5 The num- 

 ber of trees sold may prevail over the kinds named in the 

 contract. 6 The title to standing timber will not pass at 

 the time of the sale if some further action is necessary to 

 identify the trees sold. 7 



In determining which trees were covered by a contract 

 under which cutting was deferred for a number of years 

 after the sale, the annual rings of growth exhibited by the 

 stump have been recognized judicially as a means of de- 

 termining the size of the trees at the time the contract was 



(Footnote 7 concluded from preceding page) 

 Clarke v. Stowe, 132 Ga. 621, 64 S. E. 786, Perkins Co. v. Wilcox, 132 



Ga. 166, 63 S. E. 831. 



Ky. Struble v. Lewis, 76 S. W. 150, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 605. 

 N. C. Byrd v. Sexton, 161 N. C. 569, 77 S. E. 697. Tremaine v. Williams 144 



N. C. 114, 56 S. E. 694. 

 Tex. Huber v. Hill, (Tex. Civ. App.) 130 S. W. 219. Hughes v. Adams, 55 



Tex. Civ. App. 197, 119 S. W. 134. 

 W.Va. Harding v. Jennings 68 W. Va. 354, 70 S. E. 1. 

 U. S. Trust Co. v. Lbr. Co. 212 Fed. 229. 



1. Watson v. Gross, 112 Mo. App. 615. 87 S. W. 104; Mizell v. Ruffln, 113 N. C. 



21, 18 S. E. 72. 



2. Caughie v. Brown, 88 Minn. 469, 93 N. W. 656. cf. Day v. Asher 141 Ky. 468, 



132 S. W. 1035. (Description of timber controls over erroneous description 

 of land) Lbr. Co. v. Thompson, 108 Va. 612, 62 S. E. 358. 



3. Jackson v. Hardin, 87 S. W. 1119, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 1110. 



4. Bradford v. Huffman, 88 S. W. 1057, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 18. 



5. United States v. Pine River Logging and Improvement Co., 89 Fed. Rep. 907, 

 6. Paalzow v. North Carolina Estate Co.. 104 N. C. 437, 10 S. E. 527. 



7. Moss v. Meshew, 8 Busb. (Ky.) 187; Byasse v. Reese, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 372, 83 Am. 

 Dec. 481 ; Ayer and Lord Tie Co. v. Davenport, 82 S. W. 177, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 

 115; Barbard v. Poor, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 378; But See, McCoy v. Herbert. 

 9 Leigh (Va.) 548, 33 Am. Dec. 256. 



