Chesson v. Keickheffer Container Co.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | 30. |
| Citation | 4 S.E.2d 886,216 N.C. 337 |
| Parties | CHESSON v. KEICKHEFFER CONTAINER CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
This action was brought to recover damages for a breach of contract between plaintiff and defendant under which, as it is alleged, defendant agreed to purchase all the pulp wood plaintiff might cut and deliver from a certain tract of land which timber the plaintiff had undertaken to buy. It is alleged that the contract obligated defendant to pay $4.50 per unit for the pulp wood delivered, or more if the market price advanced.
In addition, it is alleged that in order to provide the quantities of material which defendant was anxious to purchase, it agreed to furnish the plaintiff necessary team trucks, and equipment for the cutting and handling of the pulp wood, and to advance the funds necessary for plaintiff's pay-roll in cutting, preparing, and loading it. The defendant, it is alleged, was to retain fifty cents per cord out of the purchase price, to reimburse it for this service, and for the advancements.
The plaintiff alleges that he prepared himself to carry out his contract at great expense and loss of time and began the cutting and shipping; but that defendant breached its contract, furnished plaintiff no equipment or advancement and refused to buy and pay for the pulp wood, except as to a small quantity initially delivered; that depending on the performance of the contract by defendant, and as was known to the defendant at the time the contract was made, plaintiff had entered into a purchase agreement for the timber on the tract described, under which contract he had a limited time to cut and remove the timber; and that because of the breach of the contract he was unable to pay this purchase price. That because of the defendant's monopoly of the pulp wood business it was impossible to sell it elsewhere; and that it was also impossible for him to sell the timber upon the place for other uses. Plaintiff further alleged that his note was still outstanding for the purchase price of the timber; that defendant had caused him to incur expenses and loss of time and had damaged him to the extent of $11,000.
The answer of the defendant denied all of the substantial allegations of the complaint except those that are merely formal.
The evidence relating to the issue of damages, which is the more immediate subject of consideration by the court, may be briefly summarized. Upon that issue the plaintiff testified that he had made a note dated June 10, 1937, maturing one year from date, for the timber on the Small tract containing the pulp wood defendant agreed to take, which note was yet unpaid; that he had told Mr. Henderson, Manager of the Company, that he had a limited time to cut the timber and asked him if eighteen months was a sufficient time to take. The time ran from the early part of June, 1937, and he so informed Mr. Henderson.
There was evidence for the plaintiff that the Small tract would cut from 2,000 to 2,400 cords of pulp wood, and evidence as to the reasonable cost of cutting, hauling, and delivering at the place agreed upon, of the price which plaintiff was to receive per unit therefor, and the value of the stumpage. Plaintiff also introduced evidence in support of his allegation that defendant agreed to furnish him with the equipment described in the complaint and to advance money for the pay-roll, and testified that defendant did neither.
Further evidence related to the value of the stumpage and the difficulty or impossibility of...
To continue reading
Request your trial