General Cooperage & Timber Company v. Hedges
Decision Date | 22 December 1919 |
Docket Number | 74 |
Citation | 216 S.W. 712,141 Ark. 393 |
Parties | GENERAL COOPERAGE & TIMBER COMPANY v. HEDGES |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court; E. G. Hammock, Chancellor affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The General Cooperage & Timber Company and H. B. Carter brought this suit in equity against Z. T. Hedges and G. W. Moore to recover an amount alleged to be due them under a contract for the sale of certain staves. They alleged in their complaint that the defendants were insolvent, and asked for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the defendants' stave mill and a large quantity of staves on hand in it which are alleged to belong to the appellants. A receiver was duly appointed and took charge of the property. The appellees denied that they were indebted to the appellants, and by way of a cross-complaint allege that the appellants were indebted to them, and they also ask for damages which accrued by reason of the appointment of a receiver.
The original contract between the parties was duly signed by them and reads as follows: "This memorandum of agreement made and entered into this day of October, 1913, by and between Z T. Hedges and George W. Moore of Pulaski County, Arkansas parties of the first part, and the General Cooperage & Timber Company of New Orleans, La., party of the second part.
The General Cooperage & Timber Company advanced $ 1,000 to G. W. Moore on the 15th day of October, 1913, and G. W. Moore and Z. T. Hedges gave their written obligation in payment therefor and agreed to give the General Cooperage & Timber Company a mortgage on the mill plant as security for the note. On the 15th day of October, 1913, G. W. Moore and Z. T. Hedges entered into a lease contract with H. B. Carter, which is as follows:
H. B. Carter by assignment succeeded to the rights of the General Cooperage & Timber Company in the original contract. The court found that all the staves involved in the controversy between the parties were, by the terms of sale, to be delivered, inspected and accepted by appellants on the railroad at Wilmot, Ashley County, Arkansas, and that the items recharged to the defendants on account of the inspection and rejection of the staves at New Orleans, their point of destination, were not legitimate charges, and the defendants' exceptions thereto should be sustained.
The court found that the total charges against the appellees should aggregate $ 10,763.70, and that the total credits to which appellees are entitled aggregate $ 12,446.55, leaving appellants indebted to appellees in the sum of $ 1,682.85. The court further found that the receivership and injunction obtained by the appellants at the beginning of this suit were wrongfully obtained, but that appellees had not been damaged thereby. It was therefore decreed that appellee G. W. Moore should recover of the appellants the sum of $ 1,682.85 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from August 11, 1915, until paid.
To reverse the decree, appellants have prosecuted this appeal, and appellees have taken a cross-appeal.
Decree affirmed.
G. P. George and Geo. W. Hays, for appellant; Gardner K. Oliphint, on the brief.
1. The decree is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; it is shocking to the sense of justice. The contract is incomplete as to the exact place of inspection of the staves, and hence the parties resorted to parol evidence to prove the real intention of the parties where inspection was to be made. The testimony shows that the inspection was to be made on arrival at point of destination, New Orleans, and the law so fixes the destination as the point of inspection. The evidence on that point is definite and competent. 135 Ark. 31. The balance due on the staves was to be paid after inspection, whether at Wilmot or New Orleans, according to the rules of the Tight Barrel Stave Manufacturers' Association, etc. The chancellor erred in finding that the inspection was to be made on the railroad at Wilmot and the staves accepted there.
"F. O. B." means "free on board;" used in the sale of goods, it only denotes the duty of the seller to deliver the goods free from all charges on board the carrier. This is all it denotes. 81 N.E. 1017; 23 R. C. L., sec 159, p. 1337.
2. There was no actual inspection at Wilmot, as the testimony shows at most a count of the number. Mr. Moore's visits strongly indicate that the inspection was to be at New Orleans. 46 Ark. 131.
3. The chancellor should have debited appellee's account with $ 4,125.16 for staves rejected because not up to contract, and the testimony for appellant and of H. B. Carter is sufficient to base judgment for the rejected staves. The law applicable can be found in 101 P. 233; 136 Ark. 342; 76 Id. 177-179; 35 Cyc., pp. 384-386, 391-7, 403. See also 81 Ark. 549. The contract was not an entire contract, and appellants are entitled to the charges for failure of the staves to come up to standards and specifications as to quality and character. The contract entitled appellant to inspect separately each and every car load shipped as to character and quality to determine the amount of credit appellees were entitled to on each car. 81 Ark. 559-560.
4. The contract was not entire, but, if so, under the evidence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Riner v. Ramey-Milburn Co.
...594. While this court has never directly passed upon the exact question, it intimated that it favored the above rule in the opinion in 141 Ark. 393, and it did lay the burden paying the expenses of the receivership, wrongfully procured, upon the party causing it, in 107 Ark. 554. Brundidge ......
-
Byrd v. Baker-Matthews Lumber Co.
...indicating delivery is the fact that the lumber was stacked or proper leased to appellee. 24 R. C. L. 57, § 321, and cases cited. 141 Ark. 393. 404; 100 U.S. 103 Ark. 331; 112 Id. 63; 81 Id. 373; 116 F. 261; 100 U.S. 124. The findings of the court are clear, positive and convincing, and are......
-
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Hill
... ... the boat as was in general use and such as a reasonably ... prudent person would provide, then the ... ...
-
General Cooperage & Timber Co. v. Hedges
...216 S.W. 712 ... GENERAL COOPERAGE & TIMBER CO. et al ... HEDGES et al ... Supreme Court of Arkansas ... December 22, 1919 ... Appeal from Ashely Chancery Court; E. G. Hammoch, Chancellor ... Suit by the General Cooperage & Timber Company and another against Z. T. Hedges and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs have appealed, and defendants have taken a cross-appeal. Decree affirmed ... The General Cooperage & Timber Company and H. B. Carter brought this suit in equity against Z. T. Hedges and G. W. Moore ... ...