CHAPTER XI 



CONTRACTS REGARDING THE PREPARATION 

 AND MANUFACTURE OF TIMBER PRODUCTS 



121. Contracts for the Logging of Timber. 

 Whether a contract is to be construed as one for the sale of 

 timber or merely for the cutting of it will depend upon the 

 terms of the agreement. ' l In a Missouri case in which a 

 party clearing land was to receive his pay from the timber 

 removed, it was held that the title to the severed trees was 

 in the one who severed, 2 but the terms of such contracts 

 ordinarily make them only contracts of employment, and 

 title to the timber remains in the owner of the land. 3 



A contract for the cutting and delivering of all the timber 

 on a tract is performed when the land is cleared as closely 

 as prudent and economical lumbermen in the locality are 

 accustomed to clear. 4 If a contract provides that the 

 logger shall not be required to cut timber which involves an 

 expenditure of more than a certain per cent above the 

 ordinary cost of logging, he cannot be required to cut such 

 timber even though it be shown that he could cut it and yet 

 realize an average price equal to that fixed in the contract. 5 



A requirement in the contract that the timber shall be 

 cut in a "workmanlike" manner will be construed to mean 

 that the work shall be performed as is customary among 

 prudent and reliable lumbermen in that locality. 6 In 



1. Lamtxlen v West, 7 Del. Ch. 266, 44 Atl. 797. See Whistler v White (Ky.) 



128 S. W. 297; Lbr. Co. v Herrick, 212 Fed. 834, 129 C. C. A. 288. 



2. McAllister v Walker, 69 Mo. App. 496. 



3. Jordan v. Jones, (Ga.) 35 S. E. 151; Gore v. Benedict (Tenn.) 61 S. W. 1054. 



4. Seavey v. Shurick, 110 Ind. 494; Harper v. Pound, 10 Ind. 32; Nash v. Dris- 



coe, 51 417; Maltby v. Plummer, 71 Mich. 578; Pallman v. 

 Smith, 135* Pa. St. 188, 19 Atl. 891. See Haines v. Gibson, 115 Mich. 131, 

 73 N. W. 126, Kangas v. Boulton, 127 Mich. 539, 86 N.W. 1043; Hubberd v. 

 Burton, 75 Mo. 65; 



5. Wadleigh v. Shaw, 45 Iowa, 535. Cf. Savage v. Lbr. Co. 134 La. 629, 64 So. 



491; Watkins v. Burdick, 176 Mich. 433, 142 N.W. 550; Owen v. Lbr. Co. 

 125 Minn. 15, 145 N. W. 402. 



6. Button v. Russell, 55 Mich. 478; Grice v. Noble, 59 Mich. 515; Shores Lumber 



Co. v. Stitt, 102 Wis. 450, 78 N. W. 562. 



160 



