166 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



at a certain rate per cord, a New Hampshire court held that 

 the one who had performed the labor was entitled not only 

 for the amount peeled upon the farm named in the con- 

 tract, but also for that peeled by mistake upon an adjacent 

 farm, no demand having been made for the trespass and the 

 other party having accepted the bark and derived advantage 

 from the labor. l Where a dispute had arisen as to the 

 ownership of logs, and a manufacturing company had 

 agreed to use the logs and hold the proceeds "as the logs 

 themselves" pending a decision of the title, the court re- 

 fused to read into the contract an agreement that the party 

 taking the logs should be compensated for the care of them. 2 

 It has been held that a contract for the cutting of timber 

 survives the death of either party, 3 and that in an action for 

 the breach of a contract providing for the delivery of a 

 minimum and a maximum amount during a certain period, 

 the logger was entitled to introduce evidence to show that 

 it was impracticable to deliver the minimum amount within 

 the first half of the period specified, as demanded by the 

 other party. 4 In accordance with the general rule, evi- 

 dence which is immaterial to the question at issue will not 

 be admitted. 5 Questions as to the abandonment of a con- 

 tract by a logger, 6 substantial compliance with the terms 

 of a contract requiring a cutting of all logs, 7 the suitable- 

 ness of the season for logging operations, 8 the necessity of 

 certain equipment, 9 and other similar questions will be sub- 

 mitted to the jury. 



1. Maltais v. Foss (N. H.) 44 Atl. 599. 



2. Rowell v. Lewis (Me.) 49 Atl. 423. 



3. Billing's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 558. But compare Dickinson v. Calahan's Adm'rs 



19 Pa. 227 (1852) (contract for five years did not survive) and McCoy v. Fraley 

 (Ky.) 113 S. W. 444. 



4. Wager Lbr. Co. v. Sullivan Logging Co., 120 Ala. 558, 24 So. 949. Cf. Bement 



v. Claybrook, 5 Ind. App. 193, 31 X. E. 556; Lbr. Co. v. Logging Co., 103 Minn. 

 431, 115 N. W. 406; Carpenter v. Medford, 99 N. C. 495, 6 S. E. 785, 6 Am. St. 

 Rep. 535. 



As to sufficiency of evidence, see Starnes v. Boyd (Ark.) 142 S. W. 1143; Lacy v. 

 Johnson, 58 Wis. 414, 17 N. W. 246; Tie Co. v. Davenport, 82 S. W. 177, 26 

 Ky. L. Rep. 115. 



5. Garrison v. Glass, 139 Ala. 512, 36 So. 725; Thornton v. Savage, 120 Ala. 449. 25 



So. 27; O'Connell v. Ward (Minn.) 153 N. W. 865; Cf. Brooks v. Bellows, 179 

 Mich. 421, 146 N. W. 311. 



6. Greenwood v. Davis, 106 Mich. 230, 64 N. W. 26. 



7. Pallman v. Smith, 135 Pa. St. 188, 19 Atl. 891. 



8. Smith v. Scott, 31 Wis. 437. 



9. Carstens v. Earles, 26 Wash. 676, 67 Pac. 404. 



