Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 12662.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 12662.,12662. |
| Citation | 188 F.2d 569 |
| Parties | JOSEPH DENUNZIO FRUIT CO. v. CRANE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Los Angeles, Cal. for appellant Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co.
Henry O. Wackerbarth, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Crane.
G. L. Aynesworth, L. Nelson Hayhurst, Fresno, Cal., for appellee.
Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the Denunzio Corporation from a judgment dismissing its action as to Crane and Kazanjian. See opinion of lower court reported in 89 F. Supp. 962.
After entry of the judgment directed by Judge O'Connor, 79 F.Supp. 117, Crane moved for a new trial. Judge O'Connor died before this motion could be heard by him and it was subsequently heard and determined by Judge Carter, 89 F.Supp. 962.1
Upon the hearing on Crane's motion for a new trial Judge Carter entered a judgment awarding a new trial and ordered therein that the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment previously made and entered by Judge O'Connor be vacated and set aside. The judgment also recited that since no new evidence is involved further proceedings on the new trial were unnecessary in view of reconsideration by Judge Carter of all of the issues of fact and law adduced at the trial before Judge O'Connor. Judge Carter thereupon made new findings of fact which were identical with those previously made by Judge O'Connor but new and different conclusions of law based upon these facts were made and entered by Judge Carter, this for the reason that Judge Carter was persuaded that the conclusions of law drawn by Judge O'Connor were not supported by the facts as found by him and by Judge Carter and that Judge O'Connor had improperly applied the law to the facts.
In his conclusions of law Judge Carter concluded (among pertinent matters) that:
1. That in negotiating the contract here involved Crane was acting as agent for Kazanjian who was the undisclosed or partially disclosed principal.
2. That the contract here involved was for the sale of three carloads of grapes for a consideration consisting of two sums: (a) the first sum being $2.50 per lug, to be paid to Crane as such agent (of Kazanjian), and (b) the second sum being the procurement charge of $50.00 per car, to be paid to Crane for negotiating the sale, making a combined consideration amounting to approximately $2.54 per lug which exceeded the price ceiling of $2.50 per lug which was in effect at the time said sale was to take place, (Maximum Price Regulation No. 426).
3. That this contract was unlawful and void because it violated the ceiling price established by the said price regulation, it being unlawful to sell or buy grapes in violation of this price regulation regardless of any contract.
4. The contract of the parties being illegal and void no further proceedings on a new trial are necessary, and Crane and Kazanjian are entitled to judgment that Denunzio take nothing by its cause of action asserted in the complaint.
Judge Carter entered judgment based on these new conclusions and this appeal by Denunzio followed, Crane cross-appealing on the ground that Judge Carter erred:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northstream v. 1804 Country Store
...contract if the party intended the typewritten name or symbol to be his or her act authenticating the document. Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 188 F.2d 569 (9th Cir.1951), cert denied 342 U.S. 820, 72 S.Ct. 37, 96 L.Ed. 620 (1951); Rader Co. v. Stone, 178 Cal. App.3d 10, 223 Cal.Rptr. ......
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. United Distill. P. Corp.
...and Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, D.C.S.D.Cal.1948, 79 F.Supp. 117, motion for new trial granted, D.C., 89 F.Supp 962, reversed 9 Cir., 188 F.2d 569, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 820, 72 S.Ct. 37, 96 L.Ed. "Fifth Defense" (c). By the amendatory orders of October 25, 1946 the O.P.A. in f......
-
United States v. Wortman
...et al., 10 Cir., 212 F.2d 672, 674, and Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane et al., D.C., 79 F.Supp. 117, 128 (footnote), affirmed 9 Cir., 188 F.2d 569, 570. 2 The Government on brief, citing this statement in Moore's petition, asserts, "The facts concerning the Moore-Wortman agreement were ......
-
Equipto Div. Aurora Equipment Co. v. Yarmouth
...third party ...." [quoting Joseph Denunzio Fruit Co. v. Crane, 79 F.Supp. 117 (S.D.Cal.1948), vacated, 89 F.Supp. 962, reinstated, 188 F.2d 569 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 820, 72 S.Ct. 37, 96 L.Ed. 620 (1951).]While the decisions are in accord as to the existence of liability on the......