Bowman v. McElrath Poultry Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1985 |
| Citation | 468 So.2d 879 |
| Parties | Carl BOWMAN v. McELRATH POULTRY COMPANY, INC. 83-592. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
R. Ben Hogan III of Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples and Pratt, Birmingham and Robert H. King, Gadsden, for appellant.
Curtis Wright of Dortch, Wright & Russell, Gadsden, for appellee.
This is a civil action for legal fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, granted defendant's motion for directed verdict. The plaintiff appealed; we affirm.
Carl Bowman is a poultry farmer. McElrath Poultry Company (McElrath) is a company in the business of producing breeder eggs and broilers. McElrath regularly contracts with producers such as Bowman. At one time, McElrath had forty-eight (48) producers, some of whom produced broilers (chickens sold for meat), and others who produced breeder eggs (eggs used to breed other hens).
A contractual relationship existed between McElrath Poultry Company and Bowman's first wife, Katherine Bowman, between 1973 and 1977. Carl Bowman and McElrath entered into written agreements in December of 1977, October of 1978, August of 1979, and November of 1979.
Under all of the written contracts of either Katherine or Carl Bowman with McElrath, the Bowmans were required to furnish the land, buildings, equipment, water, fuel, electricity, labor, and facilities necessary to the production of breeder eggs. The Bowmans gathered the eggs, cleaned the eggs, counted the eggs, packed the eggs, and sold the eggs to McElrath. In addition, from 1978 on, Bowman was required to keep records of daily egg production, mortality, and daily feed consumption.
McElrath was required to furnish a flock of chickens to the Bowman farm, and to deliver feed, medication, and sanitation products as necessary to keep the chickens healthy and laying. McElrath picked up the eggs twice a week, paid the Bowmans once a month, and furnished to the Bowmans its written compilation of the number of eggs produced on a monthly basis.
McElrath paid the Bowmans certain amounts of monies per bird during the non-egg-laying cycle of the flock, and paid the Bowmans a certain amount of money per dozen eggs produced.
Carl Bowman was paid the following amounts by McElrath for the following years: 1976--$41,248.45; 1977--$39,998.74; 1978--$40,476.90; 1979--$54,346.05; 1980--$51,770.32.
The last contract between Carl Bowman and McElrath Poultry Company was cancelled, per the contract provisions, by McElrath in March of 1980. Bowman testified at trial that in 1974, while his former wife had a contract with McElrath, he was approached by Billy Vann Croft, McElrath's field representative, who told him that if they wanted to keep the contract with McElrath, they would have to install automatic egg-gathering equipment. Croft left some brochures with Bowman and later went with him to visit a farm that had installed the equipment. Bowman stated that Croft told him that McElrath would not pick up any of the costs for the equipment, but would put in more chickens, and that the equipment would increase production.
In 1974 and 1975, Bowman purchased the equipment from a third party and had it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Cowart
...by the opposite party; and (4) reliance by the complaining party which was justifiable under the circumstances." Bowman v. McElrath Poultry Co., 468 So.2d 879, 880 (Ala.1985). Appellants argue that because the equity court held that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as t......
-
McCullough v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...relied upon by the plaintiff under the circumstances; and (4) which caused damage as a proximate consequence. Bowman v. McElrath Poultry Co., 468 So.2d 879 (Ala. 1985).’" Ramsay Health Care, Inc. v. Follmer, 560 So.2d 746, 749 (Ala. 1990)." Patten v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 670 So.2d 854, 856 (......
-
Harris v. M & S Toyota, Inc.
...relied upon by the plaintiff under the circumstances; and (4) which caused damage as a proximate consequence. Bowman v. McElrath Poultry Co., 468 So.2d 879 (Ala.1985)." Because of the application of the "scintilla rule," our duty is to determine whether the Harrises produced a scintilla of ......
-
McCullough v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...relied upon by the plaintiff under the circumstances; and (4) which caused damage as a proximate consequence. Bowman v. McElrath Poultry Co., 468 So. 2d 879 (Ala. 1985).'"Ramsay Health Care, Inc. v. Follmer, 560 So. 2d 746, 749 (Ala. 1990)."Patten v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 670 So. 2d 854, 856 ......