194 THE SALE OF TIMBER PRODUCTS 



or to take lumber in accordance with a contract of pur- 

 chase, 1 is the difference between the contract price, and the 

 market value at the time of the default. In accordance with 

 general principles questions of fact as to whether a contract 

 for the sale of timber products was actually made and as 

 to agreements regarding scaling, inspection and other mat- 

 ters connected with the sale will be submitted to a jury, 2 

 and the general rules as to the admission of evidence are 

 applicable to such cases. 3 



138. The Liability of a Principal for the Acts of an 

 Agent. A principal is bound by all acts of his agent that 

 are authorized, and even unauthorized acts, which are ap- 

 parently within the scope of the agent's authority and which 

 are relied upon by a third party in good faith in determining 

 his course of action, may bind the principal. 4 Thus it has 

 been held that a lumber corporation was bound by acts of 

 an agent that were informally authorized without a formal 

 resolution by the board of directors, 5 and that it was not 

 necessary for one who had relied upon acts apparently within 

 the scope of an agent's authority to prove a written authori- 

 zation. 6 The subsequent ratification of an unauthorized 



1. Tripp v. Forsaith Machine Co. (N. H.) 45 Atl. 746. 



2. Nelson v. Mashek Lbr. Co., 95 Minn. 217, 103 N. W. 1027; St. Anthony Lbr. 



Co. v. Bardwell-Robinson Co., 60 Minn. 199, 62 N. W. 274; Erisman v. Walters 

 26 Pa. St. 467; Tingley v. Fairhaven Land Co., 9 Wash. 34, 36 Pac. 1098: 



3. Lbr. Co. v. Hopson (Ark.) 133 S. W. 823; Hicks v. Phillips, 146 Ky. 305, 142 S. 



W. 394; Cooperage Co. v. Smith, (Ky.) 115, cr 116, S. W. 828. 

 Helfrich Etc. Planing Mill Co. v. Everly, 32 S. W. 750, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 795; 

 Swindell v. Gilbert, 100 Md. 399, 60 Atl. 102; Duplanty v. Stokes, 103 Mich. 

 630, 61 N. W. 1015; Clarke v. Halt Etc. Lbr. Co., 41 Minn. 105, 42 N. W. 

 785; Tenny v. Mulvaney, 8 Ore. 513. Evidence admitted as to division of cost 

 of scaling logs, Keildsen v. Wilson, 77 Mich. 45; Hackleyv. Headley, 45 Mich. 

 569; of lumber inspection, Fish v. Crawford Mfg. Co. (Mich.)79 N. W. 793; 

 Godkin v. Weber, 158 Mich. 515. 122 N. W. 1083. See also Lbr. Co. v. Magne- 

 Silica Co. (Cal.) 112 Pac. 1089; Guin v. Lbr. Co. 6 Ga. App. 484, 65 S. E. 

 330; Mechling v. Potter, 142 Ky. 798, 135 S. W. 266; McCoy v. Fraley 

 (Ky) 113 S. W. 444; Partridge v. R. Co. Ill Me. 589, 90 Atl. 618; Mercier 

 v. Murchie Co. 112 Me. 72, 90 Atl. 722; Kelley v. Chemical Co., 162 

 Mich. 525, 127 N. W. 671; Dunlevie v. Spangenberg, 66 Misc. 354, 121 N. 

 Y. Suppl. 299; Coles v. Lbr. Co., 150 N. C. 183, 63 S. E. 736; Richardson v. 

 Baker, 83 Vt. 204, 75 Atl. 151 ; Logging Co. v. Lbr. Co. 78 Wash. 568, 139- 

 Pac. 625; Manley v. Lbr. Co., 140 Wis. 381, 122 N. W. 1057; Williams v. 

 Lbr. Co., 167 Fed. 84, 92 C. C. A. 536; Rex v. Gilbert, 28 Can. S. Ct. 388, 

 Stubbs v. Johnson, 38 U. C. Q. B. 466. 



4. Witcher v. McPhee, (Colo.) 65 Pac. 806; Kruse v Seiffert & Weise Lbr. Co. 



(Iowa) 79 N. W. 118; Blood v. Herring, (Ky.) 61 S. W. 273. 



5. Kentucky Land and Immigration Co. v Wallace, (Ky.) 55 S. W. 885, (Vice-presi- 



dent bound company) ; Flaherty v Atlantic Lbr. Co. (N. J.) 44 Atl. 186. 



6. Columbia Land & Mining Co. v Tinsley, (Ky.) 60 S. W. 10. 



