Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana v. Richard
Decision Date | 10 March 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 17406.,17406. |
Citation | 264 F.2d 341 |
Parties | AERIAL AGRICULTURAL SERVICE OF MONTANA, Appellant, v. Wilton RICHARD, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Edward H. Herrod, North Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Philip Mansour, Greenville, Miss., for appellee.
Before RIVES, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
The trial was before the court without a jury. The court found:
The seeder attached to the plane was two inches off center, and some of the witnesses testified that that resulted in uneven distribution of the seed, while appellant's experts testified that the off-center allowance is made to balance the torque of the plane. The district court found:
"This seeder had been tested, so far as this record shows by the distribution of only 300 pounds of oats and the effectiveness of the distribution was estimated at that time by one of the pilots who undertook the seeding operation on the plaintiff\'s land."
There was also evidence that the seeding of rice by airplane requires a special skill, and William Field, one of the pilots used by appellant, admitted on cross-examination that he had never before seeded rice by plane.3
The appellant was a foreign corporation which did business in Mississippi without qualifying. Service was had upon C. P. Cole, its former agent, purportedly under Section 5346 of the Mississippi Code of 1942. The defendant moved to quash that service. It then appeared that service had also been had4 upon the Secretary of State of Mississippi under another statute, Section 1438 of the same Mississippi Code. As is usual, that section required the Secretary of State to mail a copy of the summons to the non-resident defendant. The following colloquy ensued:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wm. G. Roe & Company v. Armour & Company
...were substantially the same as those incurred in connection with a normal crop. This Court's decision in Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana v. Richard, 5th Cir. 1959, 264 F.2d 341, relied upon by Armour, is therefore inapposite. That case involved an action for the loss of a crop caused......
-
Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana, Inc. v. Till, G-C-24-61.
...obtained by Richard against Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana, Incorporated in this court (Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana, Inc. v. Richard (5 Cir. 1959), 264 F.2d 341) and the attorney's fees and costs of court and defense incurred in defending and appealing in that case. Richa......
-
Mississippi Power Co. v. Harrison
...contends applies only to a permanent injury to real property. 25 C.J.S., Damages, Sec. 84, p. 603.' See also Aerial Agricultural Service of Montana v. Richard, 5 Cir., 264 F.2d 341. This is a case of total loss in which we feel that the appellee would be entitled to the actual value of the ......
- In re Drill Barge No. 2