Pratt v. Ducey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Anoka county to recover a balance of the price of logs delivered under a written contract of sale. The pleadings admitted that it was agreed that the quantity of the logs sold “should be determined by the bank scale of the surveyor general of said log district or his deputy.”
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Anoka county to recover a balance of the price of logs delivered under a written contract of sale. The pleadings admitted that it was agreed that the quantity of the logs sold “should be determined by the bank scale of the surveyor general of said log district or his deputy.” The complaint alleges that the deputy made and reported a bank scale of the logs, made in the winter of 1885-6, (being the same which is set out in the opinion,) and asks judgment for the price as thus ascertained. The answer put in issue the alleged scaling, and…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The logs in controversy were cut and “banked” in the winter of 1886. After a part had been cut and hauled, a deputy of the surveyor general was sent to the woods to survey them. The court finds that he was unable to make an accurate scale of all the logs, because of the position of the same in the river where they had been hauled. Upon the 8th day of March following, defendant made a contract with the plaintiff for the purchase of the logs, the same to be scaled “on the bank” by the surveyor general or his deputy. The deputy-surveyor commenced scaling in January, and continued to scale the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Douglas v. LeightonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893