Crawford v. Louisville Silo & Tank Company

• Decision Date: 27 October 1924
• Docket Number: 195
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. LOUISVILLE SILO & TANK COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

265 S.W. 355

166 Ark. 88

CRAWFORD v. LOUISVILLE SILO & TANK COMPANY

No. 195

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 27, 1924

Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Northern District; George W Clark, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Geo C. Lewis, for appellant.

M F. Elms, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J.

The Louisville Silo & Tank Company brought this suit against John R. Crawford to recover on & promissory note for $ 1,000. By consent of the parties, the cause was heard before the circuit court sitting as a jury.

The court made the following findings of fact and declarations of law:

"This action is instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the sum of one thousand dollars on the promissory note offered in evidence. The defendant answered denying the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action because of the failure of the plaintiff to domesticate itself by compliance with the act of 1907. The plaintiff admitted such failure to comply with the laws of the State, Acts of 1907, but denied it was doing business within the purview of the act of 1907.

"The undisputed evidence shows that Earl Rhodes, agent for the plaintiff, solicited and obtained a written order from the defendant, which, together with other orders, was transmitted to the plaintiff company and sales confirmed, and the granaries shipped in a car to Stuttgart, freight bill made to Earle Rhodes, Stuttgart, Ark., and car received and freight paid by Rhodes, and the granary in controversy was delivered to the defendant either from the car or platform of the common carrier, the railroad company. The shipment originated in the State of Ohio. These transactions occurred in 1918. In July, 1920, the president and another representative of the plaintiff company called upon defendant, and, after some negotiations, reached an agreement by which an allowance was made defendant, and a note executed for the sum of $ 1,000. The defendant had stored his rice crop there in 1919, and continued to store some rice there in 1920, 1921 and 1922. Certain repairs were made, or attempted to be made, on the granary at the time the president of the company procured the note sued on. The court finds the fact to be that plaintiff was not doing business in the State at the time of the sale or delivery of the granary; that the transaction was one of commerce between citizens of different States, and therefore the act of 1907 has no application. That the renewal note waived all defenses pleaded and relied upon by the defendant as to any breach of warranty and misrepresentations claimed to have been made in the sale of the granary, and it therefore follows that plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the amount of the note, together with interest, as provided therein."

The findings of facts made by the court are borne out by the evidence in the record, and, in addition thereto, it may be stated that, while the granaries were all shipped in the same car, each one was marked in the name of the purchaser.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment against him in favor of the plaintiff.

The sole reliance for a reversal of the judgment is that the circuit court erred in holding that the sale was a transaction in interstate commerce, and beyond the regulatory power of the State.

Upon this question this court must be governed by the decisions of the...