Union Sawmill Co. v. Lake Lumber Co.

Citations

• 120 La. 106
• 44 So. 1000
• 1907 La. LEXIS 616

Syllabus

<p>1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER — OFFER—ACCEPTANCE.</p> <p>The instrument which plaintiff contends to be evidence of an absolute present sale of all the timber on a certain tract of land is not such. The alleged vendee did not sign it nor pretend to assume any of the obligations of a vendee under it for more than two years after the offer was made. He was not at liberty during all that time to keep the matter open, holding the party making the offer bound, but leaving himself free to take such course as his own will and interests might dictate. Until accepted there was no mutuality of obligation under the offer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 48, Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 17-20.]</p> <p>2. Same — Contract.</p> <p>Parties proposing to sell their property are at liberty to make such stipulations in regard to the sale as their will can suggest, except such as are forbidden by law.</p> <p>3. Contract — Conditions Precedent.</p> <p>Where plaintiff declares upon an instrument bearing across its face the words, “It is hereby agreed that in'case the Hamburg, Rus-.ton & Southern Railway is not completed to Farmerville within 2 years and to Ruston within three years this contract is null and void,” that stipulation binds him, and the agreement is null and void if that road is not constructed as provided for. It does not suffice that some other road may have been built between the points within the time stated with equal and even greater advantages to the party offering to sell than the road named. It is not a case for an application of the doctrine of equivalents. He had the right to stand upon the precise terms of the agreement.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>