168 PREPARATION AND MANUFACTURE 



for the sawing of lumber, which provided that the sawing 

 should be done in a workmanlike manner and in specified 

 sizes, and that the mill operator should pay for all lumber 

 spoiled in the sawing, a New York court held that "spoiled 

 lumber" did not include lumber that was not sawn the 

 right size, but that in an action for the price of sawing, the 

 owner of the lumber might have a set-off to the amount of 

 the damages due to unworkmanlike sawing, even though 

 he had with protest received the lumber sawn to the wrong 

 size. * Custom in the jurisdiction where the case arises 

 will determine largely the meaning of the phrase "work- 

 manlike manner" as used in a contract for the sawing of 

 lumber. 2 But in a suit on a contract in which one party 

 agreed to saw the logs of the other as fast as he could, the 

 court declined to admit evidence of a custom to excuse his 

 delay in sawing plaintiff's logs until he had sawn an' entire 

 raft of another party. 3 Storage charges for lumber left 

 in the mill yard for a considerable time after the sawing 

 have been denied, 4 and the admission of parol evidence 

 inconsistent with the written terms of a contract for sawing 

 has been refused. 5 A mill yard has been legally defined 

 as a place devoted to the storage of logs to be sawn and of 

 manufactured lumber. 6 



125. Liens for Expenditures and Services in the 

 Manufacture of Timber Products. The common law 

 .rule that any bailee for hire was entitled to a hen on the 

 goods received for services performed which enhanced their 

 value is applicable to logs, lumber and other timber pro- 

 ducts. Thus one owning or operating a sawmill has a lien, 

 in the amount of the charge for sawing, upon the lumber 

 sawn from logs delivered to him for sawing, irrespective of a 

 special agreement for a lien. 7 This hen for the full charge 



1. Harris v. Rathbun, 2 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 326, 2 Keyes 312. (There was a 



dissenting opinion.) 



2. Button v. Russell, 55 Mich. 478; Shores Lbr. Co. v. Stitt, 102 Wis. 450. 



3. Mowatt v. Wilkinson (Wis.) 85 N. W. 661. 



4. Hunter v. Felton, 61 Vt. 359. 



5. Denton v. Whitney, 31 Ohio St. 89. 



6. People v. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 559, 562. 



7. Holderman v. Manler, 104 Ind. 118; Palmer v. Tucker, 45 Me. 316: Hughes v. 



Tanner, 96 Mich. 113, 55 X. W. 661 : Phillips v. Freyer, SO Mich. 254, 45 X. W. 

 81: Chadwich v. Broadwell, 27 Mich. 6; Jacobs v. Knapp, 50 N. H. 71; Mount 

 v. Williams, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 77; Morgan v. Congdon, 4 X*. Y. 552; Pierce v. 

 Sweet, 33 Pa. St. 151; Walker v. Cassels, 70 S. C. 271, 49 S. E. 862; Arians v. 

 Brickley, 65 Wis. 26, 26 N. W. 188, 56 Am. Rep. 611. See Germain v. Central 

 Lbr. Co., 116 Mich. 245, 74 N. W. 644; Crouch v. Buennan, 6 Pa. Dist. 357. 



