The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-16

agent writing that letter to bind his principal
by it. After trial the point was raised for the
first time that there was no evidence that the
letter had ever been mailed or sent to or re-
ceived by the plaintiff. The letter produced by
the plaintiff referred to previous communications
between the parties. Plaintiff was in court, ap
parently able to prove mailing and receipt. I'm
der such circumstances a verdict for the plain
tilt will not be set aside because of insufficient
foundation for the admission of that letter..
The verdict is held justified by the evidence,
and the calculation Of its amount reasonable in
view Of the testimony as to the terms Of a
contract and as to its performance.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
holding that certain remarks of counsel for the
plaintiff to the jury did not work such prejudice
as to constitute reversible error. -r.., II
Order affirmed. -Jagsard, ].
Potter Mcclure, respondent, vs.. the ]. Neils Lum-
Der company, appellant. ~
Syllabus: ri st-A contract may be broken in
any one or three ways: A party to 1t may re-
| nounce bis liability under it; may by his own
act make it impossible that he should fulfil
its obligations; may totally or partially fail to
perform what he has promised.
Second-The remuneration of contract re-
quires both intention to abandon it and external
action SO to do.
Third-Performance Of contract is such q
thoro fu1flment of its duties as puts an end to
Its obligations by leaving nothing more to be
| done. ---l -. ~ ...r.s -
Fourth-An ordinary contract to do certain
work, as floating, driving and sorting logs, en-
| titles the party for whom that work is to be
done only to full beneficial performance thru the
other party, not to personal performance by
that other party individually when no question
as to unpaid charges arises. -
aF1fth-GratuitOus assistance in such beneficial
performance incidentally rendered by the collat
| eral act of the party for whom the work Is to b.
| done, which renders it unnecessary for the othe
party to incur certain expense and to perform
certain labor, does not constitute a breach O
| that contract, nor compel the party performin.
to resort to an action for damages nor depriv
him of his right to recover for the entire con
| tract prise. ~
Sixth-In this case the plaintiff, by first con
| tract, undertook to drive and deliver certai
logs clean and separate from logs of othe
parties, and by second to float, drive an
sort in separate booms other logs bearing give
marks. The trial court properly held on eyi
dence that to sort mean to separate the logs
and that the causes of action arising on the cor
\ tracts were practically identical as to-wha
was to be done under EACH
Seyenth-After the execution Of the secon
contract and upon its completion, defendar
bought all logs with which the logs specific
marks In that contract were commingled, an
after plaintiff had sorted some
such marks in Blooms the defendant notified hi
not to sort any more. 1t is held that this wa
u Of gratuitously assisted and benefci,
performance, not of substituted performance ne
of renunciation, nor Of impossibility, nor failui
of performance; the defendant received what
contracted for; the plaintiff did what he VI.
required to do, and was entitled to recover tt
contract price.
Order affirmed -Jaggard, J.