Court Opinion

ID: 9809810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:28:26.353891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:45.808624
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: There is no reason shown, in my judgment, to disturb the unanimous decision of this Court, as set out in the well-considered opinion of the Court in 146 N. C., 158.
The contract provides for “four years to cut, haul and remove. the timber from said lands.” It further provides that “if longer time is desired to remove the timber” two years additional are allowed for that purpose, upon payment of 8-per cent interest, etc. We look in vain in the contract of the parties for any right to “cut” a single stick of timber after the lapse of four years. The evident intent of the parties, as expressed by themselves in their contract, was (1) four years in which to “cut and remove”; (2) two years thereafter to “remove” any timber which had been cut during the four years, but which had not been removed at the expiration of that period. The incidental powers are conferred for the execution of the above rights, i. e., to enable the vendee to “cut and remove” during the four years, and to “remove” during the two additional years timber which was cut but not removed at the end of the stipulated time. These *257incidental powers are not to be construed to extend tbe stipulated rights, which do not embrace any right to “cut” after the expiration of the four years. The operation of the railroad during the two years is to “remove” timber already cut. It does not authorize the cutting of more timber.