Hart v. Hammett Grocer Co.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 120.) |
| Citation | 200 S.W. 795 |
| Parties | HART v. HAMMETT GROCER CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W. B. Sorrells, Judge.
Action by the Hammett Grocer Company against M. J. Hart. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Rowell & Alexander, of Pine Bluff, for appellant. Taylor, Jones & Taylor, of Pine Bluff, for appellee.
Appellee, a corporation doing a grocery business at Pine Bluff, Ark., instituted suit against Hart Bros., a partnership engaged in the bean business at Saginaw, Mich., appellant being a member thereof, in the Jefferson circuit court, to recover damages for failure of Hart Bros. to deliver a car of navy beans to appellee in Pine Bluff, under an alleged contract for delivery to appellee in said city at $2.25 per bushel. It was alleged that the price advanced from $2.25 to $3.19 per bushel between the date of purchase and date for delivery. Appellant denied that the contract of sale provided for delivery in Pine Bluff, but, on the contrary, alleged that it provided for delivery on board cars at the point of shipment, and alleged that the beans were shipped in accordance with the acceptance of the order and rules and regulations of the Michigan Bean Jobbers' Association which governed the shipment; that said rules and regulations were known to all the parties, and, by usage and custom among bankers and wholesale grocers, were understood to mean that the buyer assumed the risk of transportation. The oral evidence adduced on the part of appellee tended to show that the beans were to be shipped immediately and delivered to the appellee at Pine Bluff; that A. W. Nunn, manager of the Hammett Grocer Company, knew of the existence of the association, and that it had rules, but was not familiar with the rules or their purposes. The oral evidence adduced on the part of appellant tended to show: That the beans were sold to appellee under the rules and regulations provided by the constitution and by-laws of the Michigan Bean Jobbers' Association, which contained the form of an "official sales contract" required to be used by the members of the association in all purchases and sales of beans in which the following clause appeared:
Also that the "official sales contract" was generally used throughout the United States wherever Michigan beans were sold. That when beans were sold and bought under said rules, a delivered price included only the cost and freight to destination, and responsibility of delivery was assumed by the buyer. That the word "delivered" in said rules meant the cost, plus the freight, and was not a guaranty of the delivery of the beans. The record disclosed by the undisputed evidence that the car of beans was shipped to Pine Bluff by Hart Bros., to its own order, with bill of lading and draft attached; that the beans were destroyed en route by fire in a wreck at Niles, Mich.; that the draft was presented and payment refused on account of the failure to deliver the car of beans at Pine Bluff; that Hart Bros. refused to supply another car, claiming that they were exempt from further liability after placing the beans on board the car; that appellant insisted that appellee present a claim to the railroad company covering the loss; that appellee refused and insisted that under the terms of the contract the loss was appellant's; that after the refusal of appellee to present a claim, appellant presented a claim to the railroad company for the loss and collected the contract price. It is also undisputed that the Arkansas Brokerage Company sold the car of beans to appellee subject to confirmation by Hart Bros., and that at the instance of appellee, the Arkansas Brokerage Company sent the following telegram to Hart Bros.:
Hart Bros. responded by telegram as follows:
The telegram was followed by a confirmation letter sent to Arkansas Brokerage Company, which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jerome Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co.
...contract and declare its terms." Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co. v. D. C. Goff Co., 159 Ark. 292, 251 S. W. 876; Hart v. Hammett Gro. Co., 132 Ark. 199, 200 S. W. 795, and cases there Appellant contends that the order was not accepted according to its terms, and that it is too vague and u......
- Hart v. Hammett Grocer Co.
-
Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co. v. D. C. Goff Co.
...letters, and, when so evidenced, it is the duty of the trial court to interpret the contract and declare its terms. Hart v. Hammett Grocer Co., 132 Ark. 199, 200 S. W. 795, and cases This rule is conceded to be the law in this state, and the only issue raised by the appeal is whether or not......