188 THE SALE OF TIMBER PRODUCTS 



quantity had been finished, it was held that title to any par- 

 ticular portion of the lumber did not pass until it was dressed 

 and the purchaser notified. 1 - In a Louisiana case one who 

 purchased lumber for himself, but had the bill of sale ex- 

 ecuted to another from whom he obtained credit with which 

 to effect the purchase, was denied the right to assert that the 

 lumber belonged to his creditor and that he was liable only 

 for so much as he had actually used. 2 In an action on a 

 contract for the sale of all the pine timber on a tract to a com- 

 pany engaged in the logging and manufacture of lumber, 

 with a clause reserving title to the owner until payment was 

 made for the timber, but under which the vendor had per- 

 mitted the purchasing company to place its mark upon all 

 logs and to sell them as if it had title, the court held that the 

 vendor was estopped from asserting title against a third 

 party who had bought the logs without actual notice of the 

 condition in the contract and that a statute regarding the 

 recordation of conditional contracts was inapplicable. 3 



133. Contracts for Delivery in Installments or as 

 Manufactured. Controversies have arisen where con- 

 tracts have been made for the purchase of all the output of a 

 certain mill or for all lumber of certain grades produced at 

 the mill. It has been held that the phrase "mill-run" in a 

 contract for the purchase of lumber included all merchant- 

 able lumber produced at the mill, except the "mill-culls," 

 which were excluded by the terms of the contract, irre- 

 spective of the percentage of the different grades; 4 that 

 "mill-tally" in a contract for sawing logs included "mill- 

 culls", 5 and that a logger under a contract providing for 

 compensation at a certain rate per thousand exclusive of 

 "dead culls" could not recover on a quantum meruit for the 

 logging of cull timber by showing that such logs were man- 

 ufactured and sold. 6 A contract which required one party 

 to furnish all the lumber needed by the other for mining pur- 

 poses, and provided that if the former failed to furnish lum- 



1. Chambers v. Austin, 68 N. Y. Suppl. 53. 



2. Cannon v. Vaughn Lbr. Co. (La.) 27 So. 276. 



3. Mississippi River Log Co. v. Miller (Wis.) 85 N. W. 193. 



4. Wonderly v. Holmes Lbr. Co., 56 Mich. 412, 23 N. W. 79. 



5. Corneil v. New Era Lbr. Co., 71 Mich. 350, 39 N. W. 7. 



6. Brigham v. Martin 103 Mich. 150, 61 N. W. 276. Cf. Hayes-v. Cummings, 99 



Mich. 206, 58 N. W. 46 ("Purchase scale"). 



