Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-04
SOMERSET COUNTY.

SOMERSET COUNTY.
Allen r. Burton. ct ais VS.. Frederick
F.. Mayo. ct al & Trs. Rescrip!
Wh!tehouse. !.
This Is an action to recover tina
price Of certain logs sold by the plain,
tiff to the defendant under a written
contract. The parties agreed to abide
nv the scale 5nd count Of A. 3. Head
as final and that he should scale the
logs strictly according TO the contracr.
The logs were tEareupon surveyed by
Mr.. Head and according to his scale
bills introduced in evidence the plaln>
tlf. was entitled to recover the sum of
S20J0.0G. The :,efe ndant disclaimed any
purpose to attempt to impeach his
scale of Tho logs on the ground OF
fraud or mathematical mistake, but
offered to prove Il contract between
themselves and third parties under
which tie defendants were to furnish
bonrds of certain specified lengths be.
ing the same as those specified for the
logs in their contract with the plain.
tiffs and that this contract with third
parties expressly provided that if Il
board fall short OF specified length
by no more thar one-quarter OF an
inch, that board must be scaled as Of
the next lesser specified length. The
defendants then offered to prove chat
this fact was communicated by the
plaintiffs before the original contract
was reduced 10 writing.
The defendants also offered evidence
of other surveys Of the logs N ques>
ton by otEcr scaltrs than .Mr Head
for the purpose Of showing that his
survey was not such as was contem-
plated in the agreement under which
he was appointed and not strictly ac-
cording to tbs contract referred to in
that agreement and therefore not final
and conclusive upon the parties. The
evidence offered was excluded and the
presiding justice ordered a verdict for
the plaintiff for the sum of $2O55.06.
The original contract between the
parties contains the provision that the
logs shall "be cut 16 feet long when-
ever they can De cut said length to ad-
vantage and some may be GU IS, L.
and Il feet long" The defendants
claim that this provision should be
construed with reference to their con-
tract with third parties above specified
ana that If log fell short of Il specl-
IleN l'uS(u DJ oHe-QuuTttT VI Ill lllCtl
in the sca:e made by Mr.. Head, it
should be classified as of tho next
lesser length. Thcy claim that tie pro.
vision in the contract onGer which Mr..
Head was appointed. tina: he should
scale the logs strictly according to the
contract, was designed to secure the
sar.e accuracy of measurement.
But the defendants contract with
third parties was not made 4 part of
their contract with the plaintiffs and
1t does not appear that they ever as-
scented to a rule 80 rigorous and exact
ing as to require the length Ct logs II
be measured to 4 quarter Of an inch
Thu, y say that in scaling logs by the
ordinary method as they are run ont
of the boom such a requirement would
be, absolutely unreasonable and i'm.
practicable.
Recognizing the we'll established and
familiar rule of law IN this State that
VIXEN parties have agreed upon a sur
veyor 10 scale lngs they will in the
absence Of fraud or mathematical mis-,
take. be hound by his scale. these
parties expressly agreed TO abide ny
the scale and count of 4. 3. Head as
final" II Is true that this contrac:
contains the further provision that Mr.
Head should scale tie logs strictly
according to their contract but this
must be construed to signify that they
should be scaled as richly accord
ing to the contract as was practicable