Case Name: P. S. SEABROOK et al. v. FOLEY BOX FACTORY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-10-04
Citations: 122 Or. 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: P. S. SEABROOK et al. v. FOLEY BOX FACTORY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 511–514

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs July 14,
affirmed October 4, 1927.
P. S. SEABROOK et al. v. FOLEY BOX FACTORY.
(259 Pac. 890.)
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Botts & Winslow.
For respondents there was a brief over the name of Mr. W. O. Sims.

Opinion:
BEAN, J.
Upon the trial the real difference was as to the character of the timber which affected the scale of the logs. Plaintiffs testified that they and their helper scaled the logs and that 223,000 feet were delivered at defendant's mill, and that 100,000 feet was cut and rejected; all of which had been selected by defendant as good merchantable timber. Defendant pleaded and its witnesses testified that the plaintiffs delivered only 159,570 feet of logs for which they paid plaintiffs and that the remainder was unmerchantable timber and not according to the contract, and for that reason some of it was rejected, but that it rejected no merchantable lumber; that defendant scaled the logs at the mill.
As a ground of error defendant claims that P. S. Seabrook one of plaintiffs, as a witness, testified that he and plaintiffs' helper scaled the logs, 323,000 feet, and over defendant's objection their witness was permitted to testify in regard to how much plaintiffs paid for cutting the logs at the rate of $2 per thousand. The real controversy being as to the quality of the timber, in any event the defendant was not prejudiced in the least by the testimony. There was no error in such ruling. There is no merit in the exception to the allowance of the testimony tending to show how much timber an individual laborer cut and was paid for, and how much a truck driver hauled to defendant's factory.
Defendant moved the court to strike out all the plaintiffs' evidence as to the amount of logs delivered at defendant's mill. This testimony was partially founded upon an actual scale of all the logs and a count of those remaining on the land. The motion was properly denied. In the cross-examination of Mr. Seabrook, defendant's counsel sought to show that before the contract in suit was made plaintiffs and defendant had another contract for cutting and. hauling logs. Upon an objection by plaintiffs the court rejected the testimony, and we think properly. This testimony sought to be introduced was not germane to any of the issues in the pleadings and would only tend to confuse the jury.
At the close of plaintiffs' testimony defendant interposed a motion for a nonsuit as to the second cause of action, which the court refused for the reason the cost of cutting the 100,000 feet of logs, which were not delivered, was embraced in the second cause of action. The judge, however, informed counsel that he would instruct the jury that plaintiffs could not recover for any loss of profits. This instruction was given to the jury.
There was no error in denying the motion for a partial nonsuit. The case was carefully tried, the parties were both given full opportunity to give all the details of their respective claims. The jury seems to have reached a mean, and we hope a golden one.
We find no legal reason for disturbing the verdict. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.