viii

L.

Lane, Ashland Oil Mill & Fer

(Ill.) 891

tilizer Co. v.

Murphy, Parson v.

Musgrave v. McManus

Lebeck, Schuhmacher v.

Leckenby, Drach v.

Mutual L. Ins. Co., Forman v. (Ky.)

330

Leon v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.

(Wash.)

469

(Tex.) 1079

. (Ark.)

938

W.

mission

(Neb.) 1113 Walton, State ex rel., v. Yturria (Fla.) 980

(Okla.) 1046 Ward, McDonald v.

(Cal.) 212

(Tex.) 1079 (Wash.) 662

Weber, State ex rel. Rengstorf v.

(Neb.) 1113

Webster, Bank of Commerce v.

(Ark.) 538 Wever v. Pioneer F. Ins. Co. (Okla.) (Neb.) 993 White, Cushing v. (Mich.) 1145 Wichita, Griswold v. (Iowa) 515 Wiggins V. Industrial

(Okla.) 696 507

(Wash.) 463

(Kan.) 187

Acci.

Board 648 Williams v. Evans

(Mont.) 932

(Minn.) 542

v. Herring Neikirk v.

Williamson v. Salt Lake & O. R.

961 Wood v. Philadelphia

Rapid

Transit Co. Wooden v. State Woodmen of the World, Richey

.......

(Pa.) 817

...

(Okla.) 1046

. (Kan.) 1123 (Wash.) . (Iowa)

599 515

Y.

. (Tenn.) 657

154

...

Yturria, State ex rel. Walton v.

(Tex.) 1079

452

Z.

V.

(Mass.) 183

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT.

GRANT E. MARTINDALE

V.

LOBDELL-EMERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plff. in Err.

(189 Mich. 477, 155 N. W. 559.)

authority of

Principal and agent
agent to contract.
2. The woods superintendent of a manu-
facturing company, having authority to
oversee, supervise, manage, and control the
outside operations of the concern in the
woods, may be found to have authority to
agree to pay one who has contracted to cut
and load on cars timber belonging to the
concern, an extra amount for laying sid-
ing and decking logs, when the railroad
company fails to furnish cars as fast as
necessary to care for the timber cut; at
least, where the principal has previously
recognized such authority under similar
circumstances.

For other cases, see Principal and Agent,
II. a, in Dig. 1-52 N. S.
Contracts

liability.

preventing performance

3. One who is stopped in the performance of his contract to cut timber before he has cut all that he can care for within the required time may hold the other contracting party liable for the profit he would have

made on the portion of the work which he was prevented from doing.

For other cases, see Damages, III. p, 2, in Dig. 1-52 N. S.

E

(December 22, 1915.)

RROR to the Circuit Court for Montmorency County to review a judgment in plaintiff's favor in an action brought to recover for extra services performed under a timber cutting contract. Affirmed.

Statement by Brooke, Ch. J.:

Originally the relations between the parties to this action were set forth in two separate contracts, as follows:

"This agreement, made and entered into this 15th day of July, A. D. 1911, by and between the Lobdell & Churchill Manufacturing Company of Onaway, Michigan, party of the first part, and Grant E. Martindale, of Onaway, Michigan, party of the second part, witnesseth:

"The second party agrees to lumber, cut, remove and deliver, on the conditions and terms hereinafter mentioned, a part or all of the timber now growing, standing, lying and being on the following lands: Section 32, township 31 north, range 1 west, Otsego county, Michigan.

all of the timber is to be cut low on the "It is further understood and agreed that stump and in the most economical manner for the saving of the timber, and from such portions of the section and in such kinds of timber and in such quantities as the first party may direct from time to time.

"The second party further agrees that the work shall be done in a good workmanlike manner, and that the instructions as to the

manner in which this work shall be done shall be lived up to and carried out by the second party in all its details, and all the balance of the logs not specified above shall