Shore Lumber Co. v. American Lumber & Export Co.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1918
• Docket Number: 9804.
• Citation: 97 S.E. 667,23 Ga.App. 135
• Parties: SHORE LUMBER CO. v. AMERICAN LUMBER & EXPORT CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

97 S.E. 667

23 Ga.App. 135

SHORE LUMBER CO. v. AMERICAN LUMBER & EXPORT CO.

No. 9804.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

December 13, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the amended petition. The contract entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant was not too indefinite and uncertain to be enforced because it called for a definite number of "large" carloads of certain specified lumber at a certain specified price per 1,000 feet; the plaintiff's petition alleging that "a large carload of lumber, according to the custom of the lumber business or trade, means any available freight car loaded to its fullest capacity, and is a term frequently used and so understood in the lumber business." Farmers' Oil & Guano Co. v. Southern Refining Co., 10 Ga.App. 415, 73 S.E. 350; Thompson v. Strong (Ala.) 74 So. 34 (4); Holland-Cook Mfg. Co. v Consolidated Wagon & Mch. Co., 49 Utah 43, 161 P. 922; Kirwan v. Van Camp Packing Co., 12 Ind.App. 1, 39 N.E. 536. The decision in Stewart v. Cook, 118 Ga 541, 45 S.E. 398, and the other cases cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error, are not controlling in the present case.

Under the facts of the case the court did not err in disallowing the proffered amendment to the defendant's answer.

No material error was committed upon the trial of the case. The defendant offered no testimony. There was no conflict in the plaintiff's evidence, which proved the case as laid. The petition and the evidence showed that the lumber ordered by the plaintiff was for resale to its customers, that this fact was known to the defendant, and that, after the defendant had breached the contract, the plaintiff, after due notice to the defendant of its intention, bought the lumber at the lowest price obtainable in the open market (which was, however higher than the contract price), and sued the defendant for the difference between that price and the contract price. Under these facts the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.

Error from City Court of Quitman; W. H. Long, Judge.

Action by the American Lumber & Export Company against the Shore Lumber Company. Judgment for plaintiff upon a directed verdict, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Branch & Snow, of Quitman, for plaintiff in error.

Bennet & Harrell, of Quitman, for defendant in error.

BROYLES P.J.

Judgment affirmed.

STEPHEN...