Balcom v. Michael

• Decision Date: 03 May 1920
• Docket Number: 9668.
• Citation: 68 Colo. 407,191 P. 97
• Parties: BALCOM v. MICHAEL.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

191 P. 97

68 Colo. 407

BALCOM v. MICHAEL.

No. 9668.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 3, 1920

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1920.

Error to District Court, Weld County; George H. Bradfield, Judge.

Action by John M. Michael against W. D. Balcom, doing business as the Balcom Seed Company. To review judgment for plaintiff defendant brings error.

Reversed with directions to modify.

Garrigues C.J., dissenting.

William R. Kelly, of Greeley, and Worth Allen, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.

James W. Gault, of Greeley, for defendant in error.

TELLER J.

Defendant in error had judgment in an action against plaintiff in error, to recover an alleged balance for seed beans sold and delivered to the latter. That judgment is now before us on error. The parties will be designated as in the trial court. It appears that the defendant, a dealer in seeds, made a contract with the plaintiff, a farmer, to raise for and deliver to defendant a quantity of seed beans. The controversy turns upon the construction of that contract. One Williams, an agent of the defendant, called upon plaintiff and presented to him a printed proposition, directed to defendant, specifying the manner in which the seeds were to be planted, cultivated, threshed, and cleaned, all in detail, but with blanks for the insertion of the acreage and price to be paid, on delivery of the seeds, at Greeley. The final paragraph of the proposition was as gollows:

'There are no agreements or understandings regarding the subject-matter of this letter other than expressed above.'

The letter was signed by plaintiff, and below his signature is the acceptance of the defendant, 'By Colie Williams.' Below that is the following: 'Guarantee prices as much as any other house.'

Plaintiff was paid at the rate stated in the proposition, and then sued for an additional two cents per pound.

On the trial to the court, it was shown that another seedhouse paid $10 per hundred pounds for the same kind of beans, and the court gave judgment for the amount claimed, together with some small items not contested. No findings of fact or of law were made.

It is clearly shown that the agent, Williams, was not authorized to contract for beans at a price greater than $8 per hundred. Plaintiff's theory is that defendant ratified the act of his agent in writing the memorandum on the letter, by not repudiating it. Defendant introduced testimony showing repudiation; but, there being a conflict of evidence on that point, we are bound by the court's finding on it which, in support of the judgment, we must presume he made in favor of the plaintiff.

The case must therefore be determined on a consideration of other features of the case.

The presenting of the letter ot plaintiff for signature constituted, in effect, an offer by defendant to contract for the raising of beans on the terms therein stated. When it was signed by plaintiff and delivered to defendant's agent, and accepted by him, it became a bilateral...