202 INSPECTION AND MEASUREMENT 



The standard in general use at the time of the scaling has 

 been given the preference over a standard customarily used 

 at the time the contract was made; l and it has been held 

 that even though a contract contemplated payment in ac- 

 cordance with a mill scale of the lumber sawn, the seller 

 could recover compensation on the basis of the amount of 

 logs delivered if the logs were not sawn within a reasonable 

 time after such delivery. 2 It is sometimes incumbent upon 

 the seller to prove a scale or survey of the logs before he can 

 recover the purchase price, 3 and a party who has failed 

 to perform his part as to a scale will not be permitted to take 

 advantage of such failure. 4 



142. A Measurement may be Conclusive. Unless pro- 

 vision is made in a contract- for a rescaling in case of dis- 

 satisfaction by one of the parties, 5 the scale made in the 

 manner or by the person contemplated by the contract will 

 be enforced as final unless fraud or substantial mistake to the 

 prejudice of one party is shown. 6 Errors of judgment on 

 the part of a sealer will not disturb the conclusiveness of the 



1. Hackley v. Headley, 45 Mich. 569, 8 N. W. 511. 



2. Rowe v. Chicago Lbr. Etc. Co., 50 La. Ann. 1258, 24 So. 235. 



3. Patterson v. Larson, 36 N. Brunsw. 4; But see Peterson v. South Shore Lbr. Co. 



105 Wis. 106, 81 N. W. 141. 



4. Gaslin v. Pinney, 24 Minn. 322; Grice v. Noble, 59 Mich. 515, 26 N. W. 688; Lbr. 



Co. v. Coach, (Ore.) 146 Pac. 973; Rich v. Lbr. Co., 18 B. C. 543. 



5. Kennedy v. South Shore Lbr. Co., 102 Wis. 284, 78 N. W. 567. 



6. Ala. Ackley v. Lbr. Co., 166 Ala. 295, 51 So. 964. 



Cal. Bullock v. Consumers Lbr. Co. (1892) 31 Pac. 367. 



Fla. Shippers Assoc. v. Lbr. Co., 65 Fla. 313, 61 So. 639. 



Ky. Collins v. Lbr. Co., 158 Ky. 231, 164 S. W. 813. 



Me. Hutchins v. Merrill, 84 Atl. 412; Bank v. HolUngsworth Etc. Co., 106 Me. 

 326, 76 Atl. 880; Atwoocl v. Hub Etc. Co., 103 Me. 394, 69 Atl. 622; 

 Nadeau v. Pingree, 92 Me. 196, 42 Atl. 353; Ames v. Vose, 71 Me. 17; 

 Bailey v. Blanchard, 62 Me. 168; Berry v. Reed, 53 Me. 487; Robinson 

 v. Fiske, 25 Me. 401 ; Oakes v. Moore, 24 Me. 214; 41 Am. Dec. 379. 



Mich. Brooks v. Bellows, 179 Mich. 421, 146 N. W. 311; Navigation Co. v. Salt 

 Etc. Co., 174 Mich. 1, 140 N. W. 565; Navigation Co. v. Filer, 151 N. W. 

 1025; Robinson v. -Ward, 141 Mich. 1. 104 N. W. 373; Sullivan v. Ross, 

 124 Mich. 287, 82 N. W. 1071; Bresnahan v. Ross, 103 Mich. 483; Ma- 

 lone v. Gates, 87 Mich. '332, 49 N. W. 638; Busch v. Kilborne, 40 Mich. 

 297. 



Minn. Boyle v. Musser-Sauntry Lumber &c. Co., 77 Minn. 206, 79 N. W. 659; 

 State v. Lumbermens' Board of Exchange, 33 Minn. 471; Leighton v 

 Grant, 20 Minn. 345. 



Mo. Strother v. McMullen Lbr. Co., 110 Mo. App. 552, 85 S. W. 650. 



N. H. Hale v. Handy, 26 N. H. 206. 



Tex. Cudlipp* v. Export Co. (Civ. App.) 149 S. W. 444. 



Wis. Peterson v. South Shore Lbr. Co., 105 Wis. 106, 81 N. W. 141; Early v. 

 Chippewa Logging Co., 68 Wis. 112; Scott v. Whitney, 41 Wis. 504 

 See Thiel v. Lbr. Co., 137 Wis. 272, 118 N. W. 802. 



U. S. Lbr. Co. v. Stone, 212 Fed. 713, 129 C. C. A. 32o. 



Can. Patterson v. Larsen, 37 N. Brunsw. 28. 



