C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Co. v. Rhynes

• Decision Date: 05 February 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 137.)
• Citation: 191 S.W. 920
• Parties: C. E. FERGUSON SAWMILL CO. et al. v. RHYNES et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

191 S.W. 920

C. E. FERGUSON SAWMILL CO. et al. v. RHYNES et al.

(No. 137.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 5, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; G. W. Hendricks, Judge.

Action by W. T. Rhynes and others against the C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jno. F. Clifford, of Little Rock, for appellants. Will G. Akers, of Little Rock, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for alleged breach of a contract for the manufacture and sale of staves. The plaintiff, W. T. Rhynes, was a laborer engaged in making staves, and entered into a written contract with the defendant C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Company to make and deliver at railroad stations staves to the number of 300,000, at certain stipulated prices. The contract was in writing and specified the sizes, grades, and prices of the staves to be made and delivered. It further provided that the mill company should advance a certain portion of the price of the staves when they were "made at the stump" and an additional amount when yarded and inspected, and the balance when delivered at the station. The contract was executed on July 29, 1914, and stipulated that all the staves contracted for should be delivered at the station within 12 months from that date. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint, and undertook to establish by proof, that the defendant mill company broke the contract by refusing to make advances and to accept the staves offered by the plaintiff. C. E. Ferguson, as president of the company, was made a defendant on the alleged ground that he failed to file with the county clerk a certificate of the condition of the affairs of the corporation as required by statute, but there is a stipulation filed in the case to the effect that judgment may be rendered against the president in the event there is a recovery against the corporation itself, so that feature of the case passes out of consideration.

The answer of the defendant contained a denial of the allegation concerning a breach of the contract by the mill company, and also denied that the plaintiff was ready to perform his contract, or that he was injured by the alleged breach. There was a trial of the issues before a jury, which resulted in verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff awarding damages in the sum of $900.

It is contended, in the first place, that the evidence fails to sustain the verdict, in that there is no proof of a breach of the contract on the part of the defendant. The evidence shows that in September, 1914, the mill company began writing letters to the plaintiff insisting upon a discontinuance of work under the contract on the ground that the breaking out of the European war had destroyed the market for staves and interrupted the business of the mill company so that it could not obtain financial assistance from the banks. There were other letters of the same import written by the mill company until the middle of December, when the correspondence ceased, and nothing further was done under the contract. We think that the statements in the correspondence were sufficient to warrant the inference that a refusal to comply with the terms of the contract on the part of the mill company was intended, and that the plaintiff was justified in treating the statements as a refusal to comply and as a breach of the contract. Spencer Medicine Co. v. Hall, 78 Ark. 336, 93 S. W. 985.

It is insisted, however, by counsel for defendants that there was...