Cottonseed Delinting Corp. v. Roberts Brothers
| Citation | 218 S.W.2d 592 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 41028.,41028. |
| Parties | COTTONSEED DELINTING CORPORATION v. ROBERTS BROTHERS, Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Louis H. Schult, Judge.
Action on a contract for $10,473.78 damages by Cottonseed Delinting Corporation against Roberts Brothers, Inc. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John M. Dalton, of Kennett, and Fred Henley, of Caruthersville, for appellant.
Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, and Jones, Ford & Jones, of Kennett, for respondent.
This is an action on a contract for $10,473.78 damages. On motion of defendant at the close of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal, from which plaintiff appealed. The question for decision is whether or not plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to prove a contract.
Plaintiff's business was selling pedigreed cotton seed to growers. It removed the lint from seed by an acid process. It required pure seed for its purposes. Defendant owned a cotton gin in Kennett, but its main office was in Memphis. Sam Clemens was manager of the Kennett gin but he was also in the employ of plaintiff at a salary of $150.00 per month. Three Roberts brothers were the owners of defendant company and did not live in Kennett.
Plaintiff alleged it made an oral contract with defendant in February 1941 for it to furnish to certain farmers of Dunklin County, without charge, certified cotton seed to be planted by them in 1941 upon their agreement to deliver the cotton grown from the seed to defendant's gin for ginning; and that defendant agreed to save the seed resulting from the ginning and deliver it to plaintiff "at the prevailing prices paid by the various cotton gins in Kennett" (to the farmers) "plus the price of Two Dollars per ton." It alleged compliance with the agreement by it and receipt of 171.16 tons of seed by defendant from the cotton raised from the seed it furnished; but stated that defendant delivered to it only 15¼ tons of the seed. Damages were claimed for the excess cost, over its alleged contract price, of seed plaintiff purchased in lieu of the 155.91 tons of seed which defendant would not deliver to it.
O. S. Edgington, president of plaintiff, testified that in 1940 it had an agreement, made with Clemens, about furnishing seed to farmers in the vicinity of Kennett to be delivered to defendant's gin and the seed caught for plaintiff. He talked to Clemens about a similar deal in 1941. However, Edgington admitted he understood "that Clemens didn't have any authority to make this contract" and that he didn't consider he had a contract "until approved by the company." He said he talked to Clemens about plaintiff furnishing processed seed to certain growers; that the growers were to gin their cotton with defendant; and that defendant was to "save the seed from the cotton and deliver it to us" at "two dollars per ton over the price paid to the farmers." Edgington said he later talked to James Roberts, one of the owners of defendant (deceased at time of the trial), and discussed "the agreement of the contract growing — they doing the ginning and us receiving the seed." He said Roberts "said it was agreeable with him but he would have to discuss it with his brother or brothers." He stated that he had no further conversation with Roberts. This is the only testimony as to what was said to Roberts and it is to be noted that Edgington did not say what, if anything, was said to Roberts about the price.
However, the following question and answer appears on cross-examination: " At that time, it appeared that Edgington was relying upon a contract made for defendant by Clemens. Later in the cross-examination, it was revealed that Edgington did not consider Clemens had authority to make such a contract; and he admitted that if he had a contract it would have had to be entered into after his talk with Clemens and after his only talk with James Roberts. Edgington further said: "A short time later, perhaps a week or two weeks, discussed it again with Mr. Clemens and he said he had authorization from Memphis to go ahead." (Inadmissibility of this statement as hearsay was properly raised.) Thereafter, seed was furnished to 15 growers but there is no evidence that any of the Roberts brothers or anyone connected with defendant other than Clemens knew that it had been furnished.
This seed was furnished to the Sexton brothers of Kennett and to their tenants on land they owned or controlled. Some of them got the seed at plaintiff's plant. The landowners delivered it to others. One man said he got his seed from defendant and paid for it but got his money back that fall. Another said he had no agreement to haul to any particular gin. Some of them did not take all of their cotton to defendant's gin because they were not satisfied with its price or work. There was also evidence that the landowners were to receive from defendant one dollar a bale for every bale of cotton delivered at the gin from their land; and that the cotton was brought to defendant because of that agreement.
It was shown that the average price paid to growers by defendant for their seed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 7310
...stand, but in part from the veracity and competency of some other person.' 20 Am.Jur. 400, Sec. 451; Cottonseed Delinting Corporation v. Roberts Brothers, Inc., Mo., 218 S.W.2d 592, 594(5). ...
-
Keith v. Tucker
...(Wynn v. McMahon Ford Co., Mo.App., 414 S.W.2d 330, 335(1)), and the acceptance must be unequivocal. Cottonseed Delinting Corp. v. Roberts Bros., Mo., 218 S.W.2d 592, 591(1); Thacker v. Massman Const. Co., Mo., 247 S.W.2d 623, 629(8); Bennett v. Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co., Mo.App., 325 S.......
-
City of Webster Groves v. Quick
...evidently referring to the absence of the electric timer as a witness. Appellant cites Cottonseed Delinting Corp. v. Roberts Brothers, Inc., Mo., 218 S.W.2d 592, 594[4, 5], and State ex rel. De Weese v. Morris, 359 Mo. 194, 221 S.W.2d 206, 209[5-7]. These citations relate to hearsay evidenc......
-
Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
...will status of his employees must be stated with greater definiteness and clarity than is found here. Cottonseed Delinting Corp. v. Roberts Brothers, Inc. 218 S.W.2d 592, 594 (Mo.1949) This Court concludes that no contract was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of t......