162 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



tion. x An arrangement under which one party furnished 

 the logs which another sawed and the lumber was shared 

 equally was also held not to make the parties liable as 

 partners. 2 



122. Divisible Contracts and Partial Performance. 



The payment of a logger for a certain integral part of the 

 whole logging operation, as specified in the contract of em- 

 ployment, does not release him from a performance of the 

 other work covered by the contract. 3 However, if a logger 

 is released from his contract upon condition of ids accepting 

 a certain sum when the logs are marketed for the part al- 

 ready performed, he may recover such sum even though the 

 logs are destroyed by fire before they are delivered to the 

 marketing place. 4 A logger may recover reasonable com- 

 pensation for extra labor performed at the request of the 

 other party 5 and if logs which do not comply with the re- 

 quirements of the contract are accepted, he may recover a 

 reasonable amount for them. 6 



Where a contract for the cutting of logs provided that 

 the owner of the timber should determine what logs were 

 suitable for the market to which they were to go, the failure 

 of the owner's agent to designate all the logs that should have 

 been taken was held not to entitle him to relief for a breach 



1. Thornton v. McDonald, (Ga.) 33 S. E. 680. 



2. Thornton v. George, (Ga.) 33 S. E. 633. 



For illustrations of the law of partnership as applied in timber cases see, Williams 

 v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 277, 22 So. 331. 



Cobb v. Benedict, .(Colo.) 62 Pac. 222; Fay and Eagan Co. v. Ouachita Ex- 

 celsior etc. Co. (La.) 26 So. 386; 



Citizen Xafl Bank v. Weston, (N. Y.) 56 N. E. 494; 



Capital Lumbering Co. v. Learned, (Ore.) 59 Pac. 454; 



Williams v. Meyer, (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S. W. 66; 



Jennings v. Pratt, (Utah) 56 Pac. 951; 



Dufur v. Paulson, (Wis.) 85 X. W. 965; 



Cf. Griffiths v. Blackwater Boom & Lbr. Co. (W. Va.) 33 S. E. 125. 



3. Keystone Lbr. Etc. Mfg. Co. v. Dole, 43 Mich. 370; Hartley v. Decker, 89 Pa. St; 



470; Bean v. Blinker, 68 Vt. 72, 33 Atl. 1068; See Bishop v. White, 68 Me. 104. 

 Hopkins v. Sanford, 38 Mich. 611; Richardson v. Single, 42 Wis. 40. Cf. Loree v. 

 Mfg. Co. 134 Wis. 173; 114 N. W. 449. 



4. Lupton v. Freeman, 82 Mich. 638, 40 N. W. 1042; Bianchi v. Maggini, 17 Nev. 



323 (charcoal burned) ; Cf. Owen v. Lbr. Co. 125, Minn. 15, 145 N. W. 402. 



5. McCann v. Doherty, 98 Wis. 335, 73 X. W. 782 (Bark marking.) 



6. Bresnahan v. Ross, 103 Mich. 483, 61 X. W. 793. 



For general interpretation of logging contracts see: Griffin v. Anderson-Tully Co. ; 

 91 Ark. 292, 121 S. W. 297; Stave Co. v. Lbr. Co., 138 Ky. 372, 128 S. W. 96. 

 Coal Etc. Co. v. Phillips, 100 S. W. 302, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 589: McMillian v. Mfg. 

 Co., 125 La. 854, 51 So. 1013; Lbr. Co. v. Logging Co., 103 Minn. 471, 115 

 N. W. 4O6; Murphy v. Cooper, 41 Mont. 72, 108 Pac. 576; Fox v. Fitzpatrick, 

 19O X. Y. 259, 82 X. E. 1103. 





