Meadow River Lumber Co. v. Black

153 So. 290, 26 Ala. App. 28, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 214
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 12, 1933
Docket3 Div. 735.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 So. 290 (Meadow River Lumber Co. v. Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meadow River Lumber Co. v. Black, 153 So. 290, 26 Ala. App. 28, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 214 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The action is based upon a contract .for the sale of one carload of hickory lumber, and the facts may be said to be as follows: Plaintiff is a corporation manufacturing hardwood lumber at Rainelle, W. Va. In this transaction the initial negotiation was through its agent C. A. Dotson. Defendant is a lumber broker, residing in Montgomery, Ala., and in this transaction was represented by its agent Heidelbach, who lived in Huntington, *29 W. Va. The defendant placed with plaintiff an order for lumber, evidenced by two letters iii terms as follows:

“825 1st St.
“Huntington, W. Va.
“April 13, 1929.
“Meadow River Lumber Co.
“Rainelle, W. Va.
“Mr. C. A. Dotson, Rep.
“City.,
“Please enter our order as per your and my conversation 4/6 and 2/23 — ’29.
“12 to 13 M' 4/4 X 3" and wider average 8" Mill.
“Run well seasoned Rgh Hickory.
“EOB Danville, Virginia — $50.00.
“Practically free of heart as per your conversation.
“Grade and count guaranteed.
“We are to pay on your regular terms. You can ship this car at once.
“Sincerely yours,
“(Consign to)
“C. E. Black Lumber Company
“Montgomery, Ala.
“(Signed) Per B. A. Heidelbach.”
“April 15, 1929.
“Meadow River Lumber Co.
“Rainelle, W .Va. Our order #1810.
“Gentlemen:
“Please ship to: C. E. Black Lumber Co.
“At: Danville, Virginia.
Southern Railway Delivery.
“12 to 13 M' 4/4 x 3" & wider, average 8" Mill Run well seasoned Rough Hickory, and practically free of Heart $50.00 per M' “F. O. B. Cars Danville, Va.
“Terms, Cash Lee 2% and your regular terms to govern, you to guarantee grade and count.
“Same to be shipped at once.
• “This confirms order placed’April 13th by our Mr. B. A. Heidelbach, of Huntington, W. Va., with your Mr. C. A. Dotson.
“Kindly acknowledge receipt of order promptly.
“C. E. Black Lumber Co.
“By C. E. Black.
“CEB/b
“copy to: •
“Mr. B. A. Heidelbach,
“P. O. Box #1553,
“Huntington, W. Va.”

This order was acknowledged by plaintiff as follows:

“Acknowledgment
“The Meadow River Lumber Company
“Rainelle, W. Va. April 19, 1929.
“Our No. 12234 Sold to C. E. Black Lumber Company
“Your No. 1810 Address Montgomery, Alabama.
“Ship to & From Same — Danville, Va.
“Via Southern Railway Delivery.
“In correspondence pertaining to this order please quote our order number.
“Terms: Freight, Cash: Balance Cash 10 days from date of arrival of stock less 2 per cent. 30 Days net. •
“Order as Entered Price
“12 to 13,000 Ft. 4/4 x 3" & Wider Average 8" Mill Run Hickory—
Rough— $50.00 M'
“The above is as we have entered your order. If not correct please advise us at once.
“We thank you for the order.
“Yours very truly,
“The Meadow River Lumber Co.”

This was but a single order, and in view of the following statement contained in letter of April 13th, supra, to wit: “Please enter our order as per your and my conversation 4/6 and 2/23 — ’29,” must be considered in connection with those conversations as testified to by Dotson as follows:

“The order was given for 12 to 13,000 feet of 4/4 3" average 8" mill run seasoned rough hickory practically free of heart to be shipped to C. E. Black at Danville, Virginia, but I was not told that it was for resale to •Southern Products Company. When Mr. Heidelbach first came to me about this order he inquired about white hickory. I told him we could not supply white hickory and the only thing we had was the regular grade of mill run hickory which would contain what the logs would produce covering that grade. Mr. Heidelbach’s answer was that he would see his customer and see what could be done. Later he came back and gave me the order for the ear 4/4 mill run hickory and nothing was said with reference to white wood.”
“When Heidelbach gave me the order or shortly before then I had specifically told him that we could not furnish white hickory and that it would be the regular mill run meaning about eighty per cent mature or red wood and about twenty per cent sap wood.” This testimony is not disputed.

There seems to be no well-defined general custom among lumbermen governing the *30 terms of the above contract. There is a term in the rules of National Hardwood Lumber Association, of which organization most of the hardwood lumbermen are members, which defines “heart center” as the small soft core or pith to be found in all hickory logs. But it is evident from the contract itself and from the surrounding circumstances that the expression, “practically free of heart” had no reference to this “heart center.” Lumber manufactured from hickory logs such as are evidenced by the cross-section of hickory logs submitted to us for inspection would, of necessity be practically free of heart center and a stipulation in a contract such as appears here would be a useless precaution.

Nor are we impressed with the contention of appellant that the suit must rest upon a sale based upon the acknowledgment ■of defendant’s order, supra, and not upon the original order, supra. It is true that an acceptance of an offer to buy or sell is effective to bring about a meeting of the minds of the buyer and seller to a contract of sale when, and only when, it is identical with the terms of the offer. Cochran Lumber Company v. Paterson, etc., Lumber Company, 202 Ala. 366, 80 So. 448; Derrick v. Monette, 73 Ala. 75.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Meadow River Lumber Co. v. Black
153 So. 293 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 So. 290, 26 Ala. App. 28, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadow-river-lumber-co-v-black-alactapp-1933.