Case Title: Smith v. Chickamauga Cedar Company

Citation: 82 So. 2d 200

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1955-08-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
82 So. 2d 200 (1955)
Shirley SMITH
v.
CHICKAMAUGA CEDAR COMPANY, Inc.
6 Div. 894.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 18, 1955.
Russell W. Lynne, Decatur, for appellant.
St. John & St. John, Cullman, and Scott, Dawson & Scott, Fort Payne, for appellee.
GOODWYN, Justice.
The appellant brought suit against appellee for breach of a written contract entered into on December 11, 1953, for cutting logs into lumber. The complaint, as last amended, consisted of three counts. The contract, which is made a part of each of the counts, provides, in material respects, as follows:
The breach of the contract is said to consist of failure and refusal on the part of appellee to place logs at the location furnished by appellee for cutting of the logs by appellant. There is no claim that appellee has failed to pay appellant for the cutting of logs actually furnished. The position taken by appellant, and as alleged in the complaint, is that logs, although obtainable by appellee in Cullman County and adjoining counties, were not furnished after March 18, 1954; that "it was feasible and economical to have such logs manufactured into lumber having due regard for market conditions and the availability of such logs in such vicinity"; that he has at all times been "ready, willing and able to manufacture said logs into lumber as stipulated in said contract"; that he "was put to much expense in the purchase and installation of proper mills, saws, machinery and equipment and mill supplies and paraphernalia to carry on said enterprise"; and that by reason of "the defendant's breach of the said contract the plaintiff lost the fruits and profits of carrying on said enterprise and his said machinery and equipment were thereby proximately caused to deteriorate in value and damaged by the nonuse thereof." It is further alleged that appellee stopped the placing of logs "through pretense or subterfuge and not in good faith but through mere pretext."
*202 Appellee demurred to the complaint. The principal ground is that, under the provisions of Section 9 of the contract, the furnishing of logs for cutting is left to the sole discretion of appellee, thereby rendering the contract so indefinite and uncertain as to be unenforceable. The demurrer was sustained. Because of this adverse ruling, plaintiff suffered a nonsuit to be taken and prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of nonsuit.
It is an approved principle that "the law does not favor, but leans against the destruction of contracts because of uncertainty; it will, if feasible, so construe the contract as to carry into effect the reasonable intention of the parties if that can be ascertained." Hamilton v. Stone, 202 Ala. 468, 469, 80 So. 852; McIntyre Lumber & Export Co. v. Jackson Lumber Co., 165 Ala. 268, 274, 51 So. 767, 770. But, as stated in Jones v. Lanier, 198 Ala. 363, 366, 73 So. 535, 536, the court "cannot set up a contract for the parties". See, also, Pizitz-Smolian Co-op. Stores v. Meeks, 224 Ala. 330, 331, 140 So. 442.
It seems to us that Section 9 of the contract clearly leaves to appellee the right, at its own option and discretion, to determine what quantity of logs, if any, should be furnished for cutting into lumber by appellant. There is no provision in the contract obligating appellee to furnish any specified number of logs, nor is there any criterion furnished by the contract for ascertaining the number of logs to be furnished by appellee. The provision is that logs will be furnished "in such quantities as Lumberman (appellee) deems feasible and economical". That means, as we interpret it, such logs as appellee should determine, in its sole discretion, to be feasible and economical. Webster's New International Dictionary, 2d Ed., p. 685, defines the word "deem" as follows:
The same authority, pp. 926, 814, defines "feasible" and "economical" as follows:
"3. Likely; probable; reasonable."
It seems to us in applying these definitions to the obligation assumed by appellee under the contract, that appellee is given "an unlimited right to determine" the extent of its performance with respect to the furnishing of logs, thereby rendering its obligation too indefinite for legal enforcement. As stated in 12 Am.Jur., Contracts, § 66, p. 568:
From Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Payne, 186 Ala. 341, 346, 64 So. 617, 618, is the following:
*203 As stated in Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, § 32, pp. 40-41:
The applicable principle is thus stated in 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 36c(1), pp. 364-365:
From 1 Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., §§ 37, 43, pp. 98-99, 126, is the following:
It follows, from what we have said, that the judgment appealed from is due to be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
LAWSON, STAKELY, MERRILL and MAYFIELD, JJ., concur.