W. B. Thompson & Co. v. Union Sawmill Co.

Citations

• 121 La. 318
• 46 So. 341
• 1908 La. LEXIS 675

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignments — Contbacts — Mutuality— Consideration.</p> <p>The rights which defendants assert as transferees under the instrument which they set out in their answer are neither just nor well founded, as that instrument for want of mutuality and serious consideration did not evidence-a valid and binding contract.</p> <p>2. Logs and Logging — License to Cut Timber-Construction — Nonperformance.</p> <p>The instrument on which defendant as. transferee thereunder bases its rights was not signed by the party named therein as the party of the second part, nor did he take upon himself the obligations of a purchaser of all the timber upon plaintiffs’ land, neither did he take upon himself the obligation of constructing or causing to be constructed the Hamburg, Ruston & Southern Railway, or some other standard gauge railway, through that section within two years of the date of that instrument. It was stipulated in the instrument referred to that if such road should not be completed within two years from the date of the instrument that the agreement should be null and void. A road was not completed within the time fixed, and if any rights had accrued prior to the time fixed in favor of any one under the license granted to cut and remove timber, to be paid for when cut and removed (which was not the fact), that right. ended when the two years expired and the road had not been completed.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>The stipulation on that subject was the controlling stipulation of the whole act — all the other clauses and stipulations in the instrument •were held in check and subordinated and governed by it.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>