Dingfelder v. White Bluffs Warehouse Co.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1924
• Docket Number: 18671.
• Citation: 131 Wash. 129,229 P. 17
• Parties: DINGFELDER et al. v. WHITE BLUFFS WAREHOUSE CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

229 P. 17

131 Wash. 129

DINGFELDER et al. v. WHITE BLUFFS WAREHOUSE CO.

No. 18671.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 7, 1924

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; Truax, Judge.

Action by C. I. Dingfelder and others, a copartnership doing business under the firm name of C. I. & M. Dingfelder against the White Bluffs Warehouse Company, in which defendant filed a counterclaim. From a judgment for defendant on its counterclaim, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Moulton & Jeffrey, of Kennewick, and D. V Morthland, of Yakima, for appellants.

Holden Shumate & Chency, of Yakima, for respondent.

PARKER J.

The plaintiffs, Dingfelder and others, constituting a copartnership with its principal place of business of New York City, commenced this action in the superior court for Benton county against the defendant, White Bluffs Warehouse Company, a domestic corporation, having its principal place of business at White Bluffs in that county. As a first cause of action the plaintiffs seek recovery upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $5,000, with interest, executed by the defendant on July 25, 1921, payable to H. D. Smith or order on or before five months from date; which note was assigned to the plaintiffs. As a second cause of action the plaintiffs seek recovery upon a promissory note for $2,000, with interest, executed by the defendant on August 15, 1921, payable to Cascade Packing Company or order on December 15, 1921, which note was assigned to the plaintiffs. As a third cause of action the plaintiffs seek recovery upon a loan of $3,045 made by H. D. Smith to the defendant on August 22, 1921, which was agreed to be evidenced by a promissory note, but was not so evidenced by the defendant as agreed, which obligation on the part of the defendant was assigned to the plaintiffs.

Answering the first cause of action, the defendant admits the execution of the $5,000 note and its transfer to the plaintiffs, but alleges that the note was given in the first instance for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs, and that Smith was acting as the agent of the plaintiffs in the transaction; and further alleges that the note has been fully paid, satisfied, and discharged by the application of credits due the defendant. Answering the second cause of action, the defendant admits the execution of the $2,000 note, but alleges that the note was delivered to the Cascade Packing Company as the agent of the plaintiffs herein and for their use and benefit, and further alleges that the note has been fully paid by the application of credits due the defendant. In this connection it may be noted that, in support of the allegation of this note being given for the benefit of the defendant, the plaintiffs' evidence manifestly proceeds upon the theory that the Cascade Packing Company and H. D Smith are one and the same person so far as this transaction is concerned. Answering the third cause of action, the defendant admits that it received at the hands of Smith a loan as an advance payment of $3,045 on account of prospective shipments of cars of fruit to the plaintiffs, Smith acting as agent for the plaintiffs in that behalf, and further alleges that the amount of the loan has been fully paid and satisfied by the application of credits due the defendant. Further answering by way of set-off and counterclaim, the defendant alleges in substance that between September 8, 1921, and November 14, 1921, it sold, shipped, and consigned to the plaintiffs apples in carload lots, and also rendered services, expended moneys, and furnished material in connection with such sales and consignments at the instance and request of plaintiffs, for all of which there is justly due from the plaintiffs to the defendant the total sum of $21,032.75, for which the defendant prays judgment against the plaintiffs, less the amount of the notes and loan upon which the plaintiffs seek recovery, to wit, in a sum of approximately $10,000. Upon the issues so made the cause proceeded to trial in the superior court sitting with a jury, and resulted in a verdict awarding to the defendant recovery against the plaintiffs in the sum of $9,666.62. Judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

In July, 1921, H. D. Smith was located at Yakima, engaged in buying and securing consignments of fruit by carload lots for appellants. Respondent was then engaged in marketing fruit received by it from growers in the neighborhood of White Bluffs, which is some 50 miles from Yakima. Smith and respondent then entered into an agreement looking to the sale of the fruit it should procure from growers in the neighborhood of White Bluffs to or through appellants. It was agreed that Smith was from time to time to cause credits to be made upon respondent's bank account with the First National Bank of Yakima. In pursuance of this agreement Smith caused the bank to so credit respondent's deposit account with the $5,000 and $2,000 represented by the two notes here in question and also the $3,045 loan here in question. These advances to respondent were made by Smith from moneys furnished him by appellants, and the obligations so created were very soon after their creation assigned by Smith to appellants; it having previously been agreed between respondent and Smith who, as respondent claimed, was appellants' agent, that these and other advances similarly made would be repaid by shipments of carloads of fruit to be made by respondent to appellants. During the fall of 1921 respondent accordingly, by direction of Smith, made shipments of some 45 cars of fruit to appellants, some of which were direct sales and some of which were consignments on sale for a commission; the latter however, were sold by appellants and accounts rendered therefor. Appellants claim that Smith was in all of these dealings the agent of respondent and not their agent; that they were innocent holders of the two notes acquired by them in due course before maturity and also the holders by assignment of the $3,045 loan claim against respondent; and that in any event no part of the notes or loan claim has ever been paid by respondent either to Smith or appellants. Respondent claims that Smith was in all these dealings the agent of appel...