SAWING OF LUMBER 167 



124. Contracts for the Sawing of Lumber. The 



interpretation of contracts for the sawing of lumber follow 

 general legal principles. : Failure to deliver logs for sawing 

 as agreed in a contract, 2 as well as the failure to saw those 

 delivered, 3 will give rise to an action for a breach of con- 

 tract; and the measure of damages will be the actual loss 

 sustained by the party injured including reasonably proxi- 

 mate prospective profits. 4 However, if the contract does 

 not bind a party to deliver any fixed amount during a cer- 

 tain period, no damages can be obtained by the mill owner 

 for the failure of the other party to deliver logs, though the 

 contract required him to saw all that should be delivered 

 during that time. 5 Recovery of the contract price for the 

 timber actually sawn, less any damages suffered by the 

 other party, may be obtained by one who has failed to saw all 

 logs covered by a contract. 6 Settlement for sawing upon 

 the basis of a certain measurement which was agreed upon 

 cannot be enforced if the measurement is shown to have 

 been fraudulent. 7 When logs are delivered at a custom 

 mill for sawing at a specified price, the mill operator, as a 

 bailee, must use ordinary care in manufacturing the logs, 8 

 and account for all logs delivered or show that any loss was 

 due to no fault on his part. 9 In interpreting a contract 



1. Fletcher v. Prestwood, 150 Ala. 135, 43 So. 231; Lbr. Co. v. Clement, (Ark.) 135 



S. W. 343; Lbr. Co. v. Cypress Co. 105 Ark. 421, 151 S. W. 275; Hale v. Trout. 

 35 Calif. 229: Hill v. Harris (Ga. App.) 75 S. E. 518; Lbr. Co. v. Tie Co. (Ky.) 

 143 S. W. 581; Toler v. Wheeler-Holden Co., 144 Ky. 829, 139 S. W. 1067; 

 Wheeler-Holden Co. v. Reynolds, 140 Ky. 17, 130 S. W. 803; Tompkins v. 

 Gardner Etc. Co., 69 Mich. 58, 37 N. W. 43; Wilcox v. Allen, 36 Mich. 160; 

 Phillips v. Raymond, 17 Mich. 287; Wayland v. Johnson, 130 Mo. App. 80, 108 

 S. W. 1113; Dart v. Bean, 75 N. H. 606, 76 Atl. 172; Hurd v. Cook, 75 N. Y. 

 454; Penfleld v. Dunbar, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 239; Bowman v. Blankenship, 157 

 N. C. 376, 72 S. E. 994; Wilson v. Crowell, 48 Pa. St. 58; Maust v. Creasy, 42 

 Pa. S. Ct. 633; Hunter v. Felton, 61 Vt. 359, 17 Atl. 739; Dennis v. Montesano 

 Nat. Bank, 38 Wash, 435, 80 Pac. 764; Fibre Co. v. Lbr. Co. 132 Wis. 1, 111 

 N. W. 237; Clark v. Clifford, 25 Wis. 597; Barker Etc. Lbr. Co. v. Edw. i lines 

 Lbr. Co., 137 Fed. 300; Mill Co. v. Lbr. Co., 38 New Bnmsw. 292. 



2. Bassett v. Child, 11 111. 569; Dunn v. Johnson, 33 Ind. 54, 5 Am. Rep. 177; 



Whidden v. Belmore, 50 Me. 357; Stimpson v. Freeman, 38 Mich. 314; Freden- 

 burg v. Turner, 37 Mich. 402; Snell v. Remington Paper Co.. 102 N. Y. App. 

 Div. 138, 32 N. Y. Suppl. 343. Cf. Hill v. Harris (Ga. App.) 75 S. E. 518; 

 Little v. Barry, 125 Mich. 211, 84 N. W. 67; Toomey v. Atyoe, 95 Tenn. 373, 

 32 S. W. 254. 



3. Fletcher v. Priestwood, 143 Ala. 174, 38 So. 847; Stephenson v. Collins, 57 W. Va. 



351, 50 S. E. 439. 



4. Dunn v. Johnson, 33 Ind. 54, 5 Am. Rep. 177. 



5. Harrison & Garrett v. Wilson Lbr. Co., (Ga. 1903) 45 S. E. 730. 



6. Grice v. Noble, 66 Mich. 700. 



7. Youngs v. Johnson, 82 Wis. 102, 51 N. W. 1127. 



8. Rhodes v. Holladay-Klotz Land Etc. Co., 105 Mo. App. 270, 79 S. W. 1145. 



9. Gleason v. Beer, 59 Vt. 581, 10 Atl. 86, 59 Am. Rep. 757. 



