CONTRACTS FOR LOGGING TIMBER 161 



logging contracts time is often of great importance, and 

 completion of the contract within the time named will be 

 required, 1 except where a provision in the contract, or very 

 exceptional conditions, excuses a full compliance within the 

 time specified. 2 If a contract does not specify the pre- 

 cise point of delivery of the logs, delivery to a place con- 

 venient to the logger and not unreasonable as to the needs 

 of the other party to the contract will be accepted as a ful- 

 filment ; 3 and a substantial compliance with requirements 

 as to the assorting of logs at the point of delivery will be 

 sufficient if the failure to comply strictly with the terms of 

 the agreement causes no loss or inconvenience to the other 

 party. 4 



A logging agreement by which two parties agree to share 

 the expenses of the work embraces interest 5 board of 

 sealers 6 and other incidentals. A provision in an agree- 

 ment that the proceeds of certain trees to be cut and logged 

 by one party were to be divided, after the payment of cer- 

 tain expenses, with another party who claimed to be the 

 owner of the timber was held not to create a partnership. 7 

 Likewise an agreement by which one party furnished the 

 milt and other equipment for the manufacture of lumber 

 and the other party managed the business with an under- 

 standing that the latter should have one-half of the profits 

 of the business in return for his services was held a contract 

 of employment and not one creating a partnership relation- 



1. Utley v. Wilcox Lbr. Co., 59 Mich. 263, 26 N. W. 488; See also Kentucky Lbr. Co. 



v. Martin, 49 S. W. 191, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1358; Clark v. Lbr. Co. 90 Miss. 479,43 

 So. 813. 



2. Godkin v. Monahan, 83 Fed. 116, 27 C. C. A. 410; Goodrich v. Hubbard, 51 Mich. 



62, 16 N. W. 232; See Kerslake v. Mclnnis, 113 Wis. 659, 89 N. W. 895. 



3. Palmer v. Fogg, 35 Me. 368, 58 Am. Dec. 708. Cf. Godkin v. Monahan, 83 Fed 



116; Cf. Asher v. Saylor (Ky.) 128 S. W. 71; Millard v. Hart, 158 Mich. 602, 123 

 N. W. 38; Noyes v. Marlott, 156 Fed. 753, 84 C. C. A. 409. 



4. Maltby v. Plummer, 71 Mich. 578, 40 N. W. 3; but see O'Brien Lbr. Co. v. Wilkin- 



son, 117 Wis. 468, 94 N. W. 337. Cf. Gabrielson v. Box Co. 55 Wash. 342; 104 



N. W. 635; Stubbs v. Johnston, 38 U. C. Q. B. 466. 



See also, Ashby v. Cathcart, 159 Ala. 474; 49 So. 75; Lbr. Co. v. Lbr. Co. (Ark.) 



135 S. W. 796; Lbr. Co. v. Herrick, 212 Fed. 834, 129 C. C. A. 288. 



Hill v. Harris (Ga. App.) 75 S. E. 518; Cline v. Hatcher, 144 Ky. 711, 135 S. W. 



955. 



5. Hopkins Mfg. Co. v. Buggies, 51 Mich. 474, 16 N. W. 862. Cf. Tie Co. v. Martin, 



30 Ark. 100, 117 S. W. 1081; Veneer Co. v. Anderson, (Ky.) 105 S. W. 108. 



6. Hackley v. Headly, 45 Mich. 569, 8 N. W. 511; Cf. Kieldsen v. Wilson, 77 Mich. 



45. 



7. Gulf City Shingle Co. v Boyles, (Ala.) 29 So. 800. Similar holdings in Gore v. 



Benedict, (Tenn.) 91 S. W. 1054 and Jordan v. Jones, (Ga.) 35 S. E. 151. 



