Hart-Parr Company, a Corp. v. Finley

• Decision Date: 20 April 1915
• Citation: 153 N.W. 137,31 N.D. 130
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

153 N.W. 137

31 N.D. 130

HART-PARR COMPANY, a Corporation, v. FRANK FINLEY

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 20, 1915

On petition for rehearing June 15, 1915.

From a judgment of the District Court of Grand Forks County, Cooley J., dismissing this action, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Geo. R Robbins and Geo. A. Bangs, for appellant.

If one is willing to contract that he shall be liable for the whole value of a chattel before the title passes, there is nothing to prevent his doing so, and thereby binding himself to pay the whole sum. 2 Mechem, Sales, § 1415.

The contract made was a lawful one, and imposed upon the buyer an absolute obligation to pay. To relieve him from such obligation the court must make a new contract, instead of enforcing the one made by the parties themselves. Burnley v. Tufts, 66 Miss. 49, 14 Am. St. Rep. 540, 5 So. 627.

Under such a contract as is before us, when the plaintiff brings action thereon to recover the contract amount, the title to the property, ispo facto, vests in the defendant. The amount of the contract may be the happening of the contingency therein specified. National Cash Register Co. v Hill, 136 N.C. 272, 68 L.R.A. 100, 48 S.E. 637; National Cash Register Co. v. Dehn, 139 Mich. 406 102 N.W. 965; Burnley v. Tufts, 66 Miss. 49, 14 Am. St. Rep. 540, 5 So. 627; Tufts v. Griffin, 107 N.C. 47, 10 L.R.A. 526, 22 Am. St. Rep. 863, 12 S.E. 68; White v. Solomon, 164 Mass. 516, 30 L.R.A. 537, 42 N.E. 104; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Vaughn, 69 N.J.L. 582, 55 A. 54; La Valley v. Ravenne, 78 Vt. 152, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 97, 112 Am. St. Rep. 898, 62 A. 47, 6 Ann. Cas. 684; Marion Mfg. Co. v. Buchanan, 118 Tenn. 238, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 590, 99 S.W. 984, 12 Ann. Cas. 707; Jessup v. Fairbanks, M. & Co. 38 Ind.App. 673, 78 N.E. 1050; Kilmer v. Moneyweight Scale Co. 36 Ind.App. 568, 76 N.E. 271; Phillips v. Hollenberg Music Co. 82 Ark. 9, 99 S.W. 1105; Whitlock v. Auburn Lumber Co. 145 N.C. 123, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1214, 58 S.E. 909.

Courts cannot construe equities into a contract; it must be carried out as the parties were content to make it. Martineau v. Kitching, L. R. 7 Q. B. 436, 455, 41 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 227, 26 L. T. N. S. 836, 20 Week Rep. 769; Benjamin, Sales, 4th ed. 716, 717.

Upon performance of the contract by plaintiff, the title to the goods vested in the defendant, and plaintiff can recover the purchase price. 35 Cyc. 527, 537, 599 note 9; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1118-1120, note 1; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Higinbotham, 15 S.D. 547, 91 N.W. 330; International Harvester Co. v. Pott, 32 S.D. 82, 142 N.W. 652; Martyn v. Western P. R. Co. 21 Cal.App. 589, 132 P. 602; Cuthill v. Peabody, 19 Cal.App. 304, 125 P. 926.

The detriment caused in the case is the contract price of the goods. Comp. Laws, §§ 3528, 3589, 4590; International Harvester Co. v. Pott, 32 S.D. 82, 142 N.W. 652.

O. B. Burtness (L. E. Birdzell, of counsel), for respondent.

Where a contract provides for the transfer of title to chattels at a future date, title will not vest in the purchaser, if the contract is repudiated before delivery. Chapman v. Ingram, 30 Wis. 295; Moody v. Brown, 34 Me. 107, 56 Am. Dec. 640; Burdick, Sales, §§ 363, 364; 1 Mechem, Sales, § 729; 2 Mechem, Sales, §§ 1191, 1698; Nichols & S. Co. v. Paulson, 6 N.D. 403, 71 N.W. 136; Acme Food Co. v. Older, 64 W.Va. 255, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 807, 61 S.E. 235; Hallidie v. Sutter Street R. Co. 63 Cal. 577.

Upon a breach of contract to purchase chattels, the remedy is an action to recover damages for the breach. This remedy is exclusive, and the measure of damages is not the purchase price. Mechem, Sales, §§ 1698, 1699; Burdick, Sales, 2d ed. § 364; Nichols & S. Co. v. Paulson, 6 N.D. 403, 71 N.W. 136; Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. McDonald, 10 N.D. 408, 87 N.W. 993; Reeves & Co. v. Bruening, 13 N.D. 166, 100 N.W. 241; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 524, 101 N.W. 903; Colean Mfg. Co. v. Blanchett, 16 N.D. 341, 113 N.W. 614; Chapman v. Ingram, 30 Wis. 295; Tufts v. Weinfeld, 88 Wis. 647, 60 N.W. 992; Acme Food Co. v. Older, 64 W.Va. 255, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 807, 61 S.E. 235; Unexcelled Fire-Works Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536, 17 Am. St. Rep. 788, 18 A. 1058; Heiser v. Mears, 120 N.C. 443, 27 S.E. 117; Danforth v. Walker, 37 Vt. 239; American Pub. & Engraving Co. v. Walker, 87 Mo.App. 503; Tufts v. Lawrence, 77 Tex. 526, 14 S.W. 165; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Balfany, 78 Minn. 370, 79 Am. St. Rep. 393, 81 N.W. 10; Sherman Nursery Co. v. Aughenbaugh, 93 Minn. 201, 100 N.W. 1101; Funke v. Allen, 54 Neb. 407, 69 Am. St. Rep. 716, 74 N.W. 832.

Specific performance of a contract for the future sale of an ordinary chattel is not maintainable. Burdick, Sales, § 363.

An exception exists where the chattel is unique or is especially made for the purchaser. Knudtson v. Robinson, 18 N.D. 12, 118 N.W. 1051; Bement v. Smith, 15 Wend. 493; Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1402.

The provisions of the North Dakota Code as to rights of seller and obligations of buyer do not change the common-law rules. Proposed Civil Code of New York, 1865 (Commissioners Notes) § 498 and 1850, 1851; N.D. Rev. Codes 1899, §§ 3553, 4987, 4988; N.D. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 4991, 6572, 6573, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5536, 7155, 7156; Reeves & Co. v. Bruening, 13 N.D. 166, 100 N.W. 241; Colean Mfg. Co. v. Blanchett, 16 N.D. 346, 113 N.W. 614; Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. McDonald, 10 N.D. 408, 87 N.W. 993; Nichols & S. Co. v. Paulson, 6 N.D. 400, 71 N.W. 136; Cuthill v. Peabody, 19 Cal.App. 304, 125 P. 926; Martin v. Western P. R. Co. 21 Cal.App. 589, 132 P. 602; Hallidie v. Sutter Street R. Co. 63 Cal. 575.

There is no question of anticipatory breach of contract in this case. A purchaser of chattels, the same as any other contractor, has the right to arrest performance while the contract is executory. Davis v. Bronson, 2 N.D. 300, 16 L.R.A. 655, 33 Am. St. Rep. 783, 50 N.W. 836, 1 Mechem, Sales, § 1699; Collins v. Delaporte, 115 Mass. 159; Clark v. Marsiglia, 1 Denio, 317; American Pub. & Engraving Co. v. Walker, 87 Mo.App. 503; Gibbons v. Bente, 51 Minn. 499, 22 L.R.A. 80, 53 N.W. 756; Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Barry, Tenn. , 52 S.W. 451; Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74.

The value of goods sold should not be recovered of the customer unless he has become the owner of the property and can protect it against assignee or creditor of the seller. Moody v. Brown, 34 Me. 107, 56 Am. Dec. 640; Nichols & S. Co. v. Paulson, 6 N.D. 400, 71 N.W. 136.

The plaintiff sues for the price of goods sold and delivered. The facts do not disclose such condition. They merely show a contract for a sale. Colean Mfg. Co. v. Blanchett, 16 N.D. 346, 113 N.W. 614; Reeves & Co. v. Bruening, 13 N.D. 166, 100 N.W. 241.

The Code does not change the common-law rule governing the passing of title under an executory contract. Colean Mfg. Co. v. Feckler, 20 N.D. 188, 126 N.W. 1019; Westby v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. 21 N.D. 575, 132 N.W. 137; Proposed Civil Code of New York, 1865, § 498; N.D. Rev. Codes 1899, § 3353; Rev. Codes 1905, § 4991; Comp. Laws 1913, § 5536; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Higinbotham, 15 S.D. 547, 91 N.W. 330; Bement v. Smith, 15 Wend. 493; Comp. Laws 1913, § 7155; Hallidie v. Sutter Street R. Co. 63 Cal. 575.

Where title has not passed to the vendee, the vendor would have no action for the purchase price. Cuthill v. Peabody, 19 Cal.App. 304, 125 P. 926; Martyn v. Western P. R. Co. 21 Cal.App. 589, 132 P. 602.

After the seller had accepted a written order from the buyer for goods to be shipped on a certain day, the latter notified him not to ship them, and refused to accept them from the carrier when they were shipped; an action will not lie for the price. Acme Food Co. v. Older, 64 W.Va. 255, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 807, 61 S.E. 235; Unexcelled Fire-Works Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536, 17 Am. St. Rep. 788, 18 A. 1058; Tufts v. Lawrence, 77 Tex. 526, 14 S.W. 165; Reeves & Co. v. Bruening, 13 N.D. 157, 100 N.W. 241; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 903; Stanford v. McGill, 6 N.D. 536, 38 L.R.A. 760, 72 N.W. 938.

A party to an executory contract may stop the performance by an explicit order, and will subject himself only to such damages as will compensate the other party for being deprived of its benefits. Daniels v. Newton, 114 Mass. 530, 19 Am. Rep. 384; Collins v. Delaporte, 115 Mass. 159; Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74; Davis v. Bronson, 2 N.D. 300, 16 L.R.A. 655, 33 Am. St. Rep. 783, 50 N.W. 836; Burdick, Sales, § 369; 2 Mechem, Sales, § 1091; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Higinbotham, 15 S.D. 547, 91 N.W. 330; International Harvester Co. v. Pott, 32 S.D. 82, 142 N.W. 652.

OPINION

GOSS, J.

This action is to recover $ 2,400 damages as the purchase price of an engine plaintiff claims to have sold and delivered defendant, together with an additional $ 104 freight charge thereon. June 10, 1912, defendant executed and delivered the usual written machinery order to plaintiff. It was duly accepted. Before the stipulated time for delivery, defendant notified plaintiff he would not receive the engine and to cancel his order. Plaintiff refused cancelation, insisting upon full performance. On receipt of defendant's written notice of revocation, and on June 29th, plaintiff wrote defendant as follows: "Referring to your letter of June 22d, in which you ask us to cancel your order, wish to say that we cannot do this. . . . The order contains no provision for cancelation, and like any other contract it cannot be abrogated or annulled without the consent of all the parties thereto. We will ship you the engine promptly on July 15th (the date specified for shipment in the order), and will carry out our part of the contract in every detail. We shall then insist that you carry out yours, and you have absolutely no grounds whatever...