Bass v. Veltum

• Citation: 11 N.W. 65,28 Minn. 512
• Parties: BASS v VELTUM.
• Decision Date: 23 December 1881
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

28 Minn. 512

11 N.W. 65

BASSvVELTUM.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed December 23, 1881.

Appeal from judgment of municipal court, city of St. Paul.

George C. Squires, for respondent.

J. W. Searles and Chas. N. Bell, for appellant.

CLARK, J.

This action was brought to recover a balance due upon the sale of a quantity of wheat. The contract of sale was in writing, and as follows:

“ST. JAMES, September 30, 1880.

“This is to certify Thomas Veltum has this day bought of J. W. Bass his crop of wheat, as it now is in warehouse, at 46 cents per bushel, to be removed and weighed in six days; and also agrees to give said Bass the benefit of the rise in wheat in six days from this date, and, in case wheat declines in price, the said Bass loses the decline. To establish the price of wheat in six days, we take No. 3 wheat at 76 1/2 cents at this time in Chicago, and be governed with the change, either up or down, on October 6, 1880.

“J. W. BASS,

“THOMAS VELTUM.”

The wheat was removed and weighed within six days, pursuant to the contract. It was admitted by the pleadings that the price of No. 3 wheat in Chicago, on October 6, 1880, was 89 1/2 cents per bushel. The plaintiff claimed that this fixed the price he was to receive for the wheat, under the contract, at 59 cents per bushel; that is to say, 46 cents, with 13 cents-the difference between 89 1/2 and 76 1/2 cents-added; and such was the opinion of the court below, and judgment was given accordingly.

The defendant's theory of the contract is that the price of the wheat was to be varied from 46 cents according to the actual difference in the price of No. 3 wheat in Chicago on the day of the making of the contract and that of its fulfilment; and he alleged and offered to prove, but was not allowed to do so, that No. 3 wheat was worth in Chicago, at the date of the contract, 89 cents per bushel, and claimed that in view of that fact the plaintiff was entitled to only 46 1/2 cents per bushel-46 cents, with the half-cent actual advance added.

In support of his position the defendant made several offers of proof, which, to present the questions involved, may be reduced to the following: That there was, and was known to the parties to be, a lower grade than No. 3, which was the lowest quoted at Chicago, and that in arriving at the sum of 46 cents, mentioned in the contract, the parties were not governed by the price of other grades of wheat; that at the time of the making of the contract the verbal agreement of the parties was that the plaintiff was only to get, in addition to 46 cents, the actual rise of No. 3 wheat in the market of Chicago, on October 6th, over its actual...