APPLICATION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES 165 



livered and with stipulations and guarantees as to failures 

 and breaches of its terms, none of which defaults would 

 necessarily end the contract, was held to be an entire con- 

 tract, and a suit on the ground of a default and a breach 

 was held to act as a bar to subsequent suits. : Under a 

 completed contract requiring one party to cut, haul and 

 deliver from lands of the other party an average of 40,000 

 feet of logs each day for a period of two years, suit was 

 brought for the damages sustained by the logger through the 

 alleged failure of the manufacturing company to furnish 

 timber as needed for prompt cutting. It was held that the 

 company was obligated to furnish the timber for cutting 

 at the rate named in the contract even though the contract 

 did not expressly so state, but that the logger might have 

 lost his right to damages through monthly settlements. 2 

 A contract requiring one party to cut and deliver to the 

 other party a certain amount of pulp wood each year for a 

 period of ten years, with an option of the paper company 

 to extend the contract an additional ten years, and with an 

 agreement by the first party not to sell lands or wood so as 

 to jeopardize its ability to fulfill the contract was held to be 

 one for the sale of chattels, and a prayer for a decree ordering 

 a specific performance was denied, the court saying that 

 the supervision of such a transaction was too great a burden 

 for it to assume. 3 



123. The application of General Legal Principles 

 to Contracts for the Cutting of Timber. Under an 

 agreement by which two parties were to furnish the supplies 

 and labor necessary to cut timber from land which was 

 supposed to belong to a third party and the profits were to 

 be shared, the first parties entered upon the work; but later 

 finding the third party's title apparently defective they 

 attempted to acquire an adverse title. In a subsequent 

 action by them for their expenditures upon the timber, the 

 court held 'that they were not in a position to ask equitable 

 relief. 4 In an action on a contract for the peeling of bark 



1. Bucki & Son Lbr. Co. v. Atlantic Lbr. Co., 109 Fed. 411. 



2. Camp v. Wilson (Va.) 33 S. E. 591. 



3. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lbr. Co., 67 N. Y. Suppl. 149. 



4. Pharr v. Broussard (La.) 30 So. 296. Cf. Harris v. Amoskeag Lbr. Co. (Ga.) 



29 S. E. 302 (Company sought to escape payment for timber, by assertion of 

 paramount title after it had been purchased and cut.) See Tie Co. v. Martin, 

 90 Ark. 100, 117 S. W. 1081, and Veneer Co. v. Anderson, 105 S. W. 108, 32, 

 Ky. L. Rep. 7. (Sharing expenses.^ 



