¶1 There is no error. It appeared in evidence that plaintiff’s shingle mill was completed and began operations on or. about 18 or 19 June, 1908, and closed down on 2 September of the same year, having manufactured 175,000 shingles, which plaintiff sold at a loss of $2 per thousand on the alleged contract price. This loss was allowed plaintiff by the verdict and has been credited on defendant’s claim. There was no stated time alleged in the pleadings or shown forth in evidence during which the intestate was to take the output of plaintiff’s mill, and it is well understood that on these continuous contracts where no time is fixed during which it is to last and none is fixed by law or usage, it may be determined at the will of either party upon notice. Clark on Contracts, p. 430. And on the testimony no good reason appears for a greater recovery than the loss sustained on the shingles, which were in fact manufactured. In this connection the case on appeal further states: “There was no evidence that any of the shingles made were ever tendered or offered to Overton or to defendant, or that plaintiff when he stopped the mill had or could get timber to make any more shingles, or that he kept the mill, or whether it was used thereafter or remained idle, nor any evidence as to the amount of capital invested in it or that plaintiff offered to make any more shingles.”
¶2 'On this record there is no error certainly which' gives plaintiff any just ground for complaint, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
¶3 No error.