"It is further understood and agreed that all logs are to be delivered free on board cars on the McGraw Branch of the Michigan Central Railroad, assorted as follows: All hemlock to be loaded by itself for distinct shipment. All basswood to be loaded by itself for distinct shipment. All elm to be loaded by itself for distinct shipment, if called for.

"An assortment in loading maple, beech and birch, if found necessary later by the first party.

"It is understood and agreed, further, that said party of the second part is to receive from the first party a price of $4.50 per M, log scale, and the official scale of the Michigan Central Railroad Company shall be accepted as the final scale.

"It is understood and agreed further that the terms of settlement shall be as follows: Payment to be made to the party of the second part by the party of the first part on the 15th day of each month for all stock delivered during each previous month.

"The second party agrees to commence operation immediately, and to commence shipping logs about the 5th or the 10th of August.

"And the second party further agrees and understands that, should this work not be done satisfactorily to the first party, they, the first party, have the option of terminating this contract at any time.

pany, of Alpena, Michigan. The same to be cut in as economical manner as possible by the first party, and the second party agrees to cut the hardwood logs as far as possible into 15-foot lengths, all logs which will make clear and clean logs.

"The second party further agrees that all work shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner, and to the entire satisfaction of the first party. It is fully understood and agreed between the first and second parties that should any part of this werk not be properly done by the second party the first party has the right to stop the work, and the second party agrees to vacate the premises at once without recourse, upon settlement being made for all work done in exact accordance with this contract and any timber which has been so cut by the second party not in exact accordance with the above instructions and contract, a reasonable price shall be deducted for cleaning up of said lands and for the work done in cutting such timber.

"It is further agreed that the delivery of all the above-mentioned timber and logs shall be made before April 1, 1913.

"By E. J. Lobdell, President. "G. E. Martindale.

banks of the river at Rea's Landing and Hunt creek the sum of $4 per 1,000 feet, Scribner's rule, merchantable scale, and that payment shall be made for all work done the last Saturday of each and every month as follows: $2.50 shall be paid for all logs delivered or skidded and the 1oads made to them, and the balance of $1.50 is to be paid when the logs are delivered at Rea's Landand Hunt creek.

"It is further understood and agreed that the second party shall have the balance of lumbering of hemlock timber on the abovedescribed lands, provided the prices for hemlock timber continue favorable and the railroad switch is put in to this timber, as talked and agreed to between the Boyne City, Gaylord, & Alpena Railway Company.

"And it is further understood and agreed that the second party shall have the lumber, hard and soft wood timber, at such time as first party shall desire to have the same delivered, to be manufactured at Onaway, Michigan, into their various manufactured

as a

Prior to the execution of either contract the plaintiff had performed two or more lumbering contracts for the defendant under oral agreements. Before the first of the contracts in question was executed, the plaintiff went over the ground to be lumbered with Mr. A. H. Blanchard, who was woods superintendent for the defendant company, and at whose request the first contract was made. Subsequently, Mr. Lobdell, president of the defendant company, Mr. Blanchard, and the plaintiff, met in the office of the defendant company, where, after a conversation, the first contract was executed. Plaintiff seems to have immediately prepared for operations, and started the shipment of timber under the contract, early in August, 1911. There is no doubt that it was contemplated between the parties that the operation should be carried on "hot-logging" operation. That is to say, it was expected that the trees would be cut down, immediately thereafter "swamped," "skidded," and hauled to the McGraw Branch for loading, where they were to be immediately loaded upon cars furnished by the railroad company, for the purpose of transportation to Bay City, where the defendant had contracts of sale covering the product. From early in August to about the 8th day of January, the Michigan Central Railroad Company supplied sufficient cars to permit the operation to proceed under the "hot-logging" practice. From that time forward, the cars were not furnished in adequate numbers by the railroad company. When this situation arose, the plaintiff and Mr. Blanchard, defendant's woods superintendent, went to Bay City, and there interviewed the railway officials for the purpose of securing adequate car service. This, however, they were unable to accomplish. Whereupon, it is undisputed on the record that Blanchard directed plaintiff to continue the operations, and deck all logs at the branch where they were to be loaded, and where they should lie until cars should be furnished later. In carrying out these instructions, plaintiff built 1,000 feet of extra sidetrack, and thereafter decked about 1,500,000 feet of logs. These were not all decked at the same time, plaintiff loading

nished, with logs as they came from the cutting grounds. For extra labor in building the sidetrack and decking these logs, plaintiff claimed the sum of $750, being 50 cents per thousand. The record discloses that the value of the extra services performed in this behalf was from $1 to $1.50 per thousand, but plaintiff and Blanchard agreed that the compensation should be 50 cents per thousand, Blanchard, defendant's woods superintendent, as well as plaintiff, testified to this agreement. While defendant does not deny the making of this agreement between Blanchard and plaintiff, it does deny the authority of Blanchard to act as its agent and bind it.

A second controversy, arising under the first contract, involves the question of the payment of the wages of a scaler. The total amount paid by the plaintiff as the wages of a scaler was $700, one half of which, $350, plaintiff claimed from defendant. Touching this item, it was the claim of the plaintiff that, after the first contract was entered into, it was agreed between himself and Mr. Blanchard, in the presence of Mr. Lobdell, who consented to the arrangement, that a scaler should be employed, mutually satisfactory to the parties, whose scale should be used as a check upon the scaler of the Michigan Central Railway, and that the wages of said scaler should be borne, one half by each party to the contract. This arrangement, testified to by plaintiff and Mr. Blanchard, was denied by Mr. Lobdell.

The third item of plaintiff's claim arises under the second contract, and grows out of the fact that on February 4th defendant ordered plaintiff to discontinue cutting on a portion of the so-called Montmorency contract. It is plaintiff's claim, in this regard, that he had built roads to the timber to be lumbered under the contract, and that he could have lumbered some 600,000 or 700,000 feet more timber, had he not been unlawfully ordered to discontinue that operation. Plaintiff claims that, by reason of defendant's unlawful act in ordering him to stop, he lost a prospective profit of $1,200.

A second dispute arose between the parties growing out of the second contract. That contract provides: "Two dollars and 50 cents shall be paid for all logs delivered or skidded and the roads made to them, and the balance of $1.50 is to be paid when the logs are delivered at Rea's Landing and Hunt creek."

Early in the performance of this contract, a dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant as to the location of Rea's Landing. It was the contention of plaintiff that Rea's

"If you do not find that Mr. Blanchard had this authority, which I have spoken of, to oversee, supervise, manage, and control the outside operations in the woods of this concern, then Mr. Martindale hasn't a lookin on that claim. But, if he had, then I charge you equally, as the law, that he had a right to make this arrangement, which he says he made, to have Mr. Martindale put this excess of logs into these skidways, and thereafter load them out. And if he promised that he should be paid for those services, then Mr. Martindale would be entitled to recover what those services that is, the extra cost in loading out the skidded logs-what it was fairly and reasonably worth. He claims $750. It is for you to say whether he is entitled to that sum."

The first paragraph quoted above would seem to permit a recovery on the quantum meruit. The second predicates the plaintiff's right to recover, upon the authority of Mr. Blanchard to fix the value of the extra service and bind his principal to pay the agreed sum. As indicated, we believe the first paragraph above quoted states the law applicable to the case, but we are further of the opinion that no error was committed by the court in submitting the question of Blanchard's agency to the jury, under the testimony contained in the record. From Blanchard's testimony, it fairly appears, we think, that he had, on various occasions during the period of his service with defendant, assumed to direct the performance of similar contracts, and that his principal, the defendant, had recognized his authority so to do. The testimony of plaintiff and Blanchard as to the method of doing business, and as to the exercise of authority by Blanchard in this as well as in other similar contracts, was, in our opinion, quite sufficient to carry to the jury the question as to whether Blanchard had authority to agree to pay the extra compensation. Marx v. King, 162 Mich. 258, 127 N. W. 341.

himself flatly denied the making of any such arrangement at any time.

As to the third item of plaintiff's damages, arising from the closing down of the so-called Montmorency operation, defendant claims that it was acting within its legal rights in so doing, in order to insure the delivery of all the logs then cut to the piling grounds designated in the contract, before the snow should vanish in the spring. Counsel for defendant say: "The defendant's position, for the reasons indicated above, and to insure the delivery of the logs already decked, was simply that Martindale should stop cutting any more timber until he had hauled this 1,500,000 feet which was decked, and that he should use his dray haul force in hastening the delivery of these sleigh haul logs.'

Upon this point the learned trial judge instructed the jury as follows:

"If you find from the evidence, gentlemen, in this case, by a fair weight and preponderance, that if Grant Martindale had not been stopped by the defendant, he could have hauled out his sleigh haul logs, and also could have cut and put in this quantity of dead hemlock which he was using for his dray haul; that if he had not been stopped he could have completed the job on both kinds of timber-then I charge you that he would be entitled to such damages as I shall instruct you in a few moments. But, on the other hand, gentlemen, and from the different standpoint, I charge you expressly that, if an honest fair-minded lumberman, of ordinary intelligence, experience, and prudence, would not have believed that the plaintiff, under the circumstances then existing, could put his sleigh haul logs then on skids to the river before April 1, 1913, and also put in the remaining dray haul timber, and that the defendant did not so believe, then the defendant had the right to instruct the plaintiff to stop cutting dray haul logs, and use his force to get all the logs ready cut to the river before cutting any more logs of either kind.

Plaintiff himself clearly testified that the arrangement was made subsequent to the execution of the contract, and we think a fair consideration of the entire record leads to the conclusion that the weight of the