Kent v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 17 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 8609,8609 |
| Citation | 80 Idaho 57,324 P.2d 398 |
| Parties | W. B. KENT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank S. CAMPBELL, doing business as F. S. Campbell Company, Defendant-Appellant. Newell J. DOCKSTADER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank S. CAMPBELL, doing business as F. S. Campbell Company, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Nielson & Nielson, Burley, for appellant.
William T. Goodman, Rupert, for W. B. Kent. H. V. Creason, Creason & Creason, Rupert, for respondent, Newell J. Dockstader.
These actions, by stipulation of the parties, were consolidated for purposes of trial.
Each respondent commenced action against appellant seeking recovery of the agreed price of seed beans produced during the 1955 farming season under a written crop contract with appellant. The contracts are identical in form differing only as to the acreage and variety of beans produced. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict of $2,651.40 for respondent Kent, and $2,109 for respondent Dockstader. Appellant perfected an appeal from each judgment entered pursuant to verdict.
Certain portions of the crop contracts read as follows:
'The Company agrees to furnish the Grower with the stock seed for such purpose in the amount aforesaid, the title to such stock seed and to the seed crop produced therefrom to be and remain at all times in the Company except as otherwise stated.
'* * * The receipt of the crop by the Company shall not constitute acceptance thereof hereunder.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *.
'In case the crop is not accepted by the Company, the title thereto shall forthwith thereupon vest in the Grower, whether in his possession or not, and if in the Company's possession, it shall thereupon be subject to the Grower's disposition at his risk.'
The 'Company', in such portions of the crop contracts, refers to appellant and the 'Grower' to respondents.
Appellant's defenses against respondents' complaints essentially are:
That the beans tested less than appellant's required standard of 85% germination, which rendered them unmarketable, and that some quantity of Dockstader's beans were discolored, and that appellant so notified respondents. Appellant then alleges that after it rejected the Kent beans because they were unmerchantable,
'that the plaintiff and defendant [appellant and respondent Kent] then, on or about December 1, 1955 * * * entered into an oral agreement wherein the plaintiff requested the defendant to handle the beans of plaintiff at the plaintiff's risk; that thereafter, in carrying out the oral agreement, the defendant endeavored to sell plaintiff's beans on a dockage basis and as substandard beans * * * under the custom of the bean industry * * * to reduce the volume 2% for each point the germination is under the 85% that is acceptable to the seed industry.'
Then follows appellant's admission that he paid $1,500 on account of the Kent beans, and its offer to pay respondent Kent for the balance on a dockage basis, which Kent refused. Appellant alleges, with reference to the Dockstader beans, that after he had advised respondent Dockstader of the unmerchantability of his beans,
'the plaintiff [respondent Dockstader] requested the defendant to see what could be done in the blending of plaintiff's beans with other beans and requested the defendant to attempt to dispose of the beans so blended at the risk of plaintiff.'
Appellant then alleges his attempts to market the Dockstader beans as blended and amount remaining on hand.
Essentially respondents' actions are for accountings in accordance with the terms of contracts of completed bailments, with title to the beans reposing in appellant bailor, with redelivery of the beans to respondents, bailees, and vesting of title in them, allegedly rendered impossible by the appellant bailor's acts of acceptance of the beans.
Appellant defended on the theory of executory oral buy and sell consignment contracts allegedly entered into upon appellant bailor's nonacceptance of the beans, title thereupon vesting in respondents bailees.
Appellant assigns the error, that the verdicts are contrary to the evidence in that the evidence shows that the crop contracts were bailments and not executory buy and sell contracts. Appellant contends, 'this bailment continued and was in force when the actions were commenced.'
The crop contracts as drafted recognize the theory of bailment. The growers, respondents, recognized title to the beans to be in appellant, bailor; and respondents, bailees, fulfilled the requirement of the bailment by their delivery of the beans to appellant with title thereto reposing in appellant, bailor. Thereupon the bailments terminated, for then, as stated in the conversion action of D. M. Ferry & Co. v. Forquer, 61 Mont. 336, 202 P. 193, 195, 29 A.L.R. 642,
'* * * the preponderant authority and better reasoning support the rule that upon the termination of the bailment, the identical thing bailed, or the product of or substitute for that thing, together with the increments, earnings and gains which may have accrued to it during the period of the bailment, must be re-delivered, delivered over, or accounted for by the bailee in accordance with the terms of the contract.'
In the case here, title to the beans reposed in appellant unless and until within a reasonable time he should see fit to reject them by nonacceptance for any cause stated in the crop contracts. The question is thus presented, whether the evidence shows that appellant rendered impossible the rejection and nonacceptance of the beans by rendering impossible their redelivery in entirety to respondents, bailees.
Respondent Dockstader delivered the beans grown under his contract to appellant during September, and Kent made delivery during the first week in October, 1955.
During December, 1955, appellant shipped some of the Dockstader beans, which was at a time prior to attempted rejection of those beans 'after the first of the year' of 1956.
Appellant made two payments on the account of Kent's beans, i. e., $1,000 on October 8, 1955, and $500 on December 4, 1956, and shipped some of those beans. It was 'along the last of the year' 1955 that the germination tests were discussed. Respondent's testimony on cross-examination appears:
'A. He showed me...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Haney Seed Co., Inc.
...P.2d 1102 (1975); Stone v. Bradshaw, supra. Lastly, we recognize that the contract at issue here is the same type as in Kent v. Campbell, 80 Idaho 57, 342 P.2d 398 (1958), and therein denominated as a contract in bailment. Kent has been seriously criticized in later cases. See Peterson v. C......
-
Anderson v. Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc.
...same and the judgment based thereon will not be set aside. I.C. § 13-219; Litalien v. Tuthill, 75 Idaho 335, 272 P.2d 311; Kent v. Campbell, 80 Idaho 57, 324 P.2d 398; Seamons v. Spackman, 81 Idaho 361, 341 P.2d 442; C. R. Crowley Inc. v. Soelberg, 81 Idaho 480, 346 P.2d The judgment is aff......
-
Peterson v. Conida Warehouses, Inc., 12128
...to overrule Washburn-Wilson. Appellant argues that Washburn-Wilson has been overruled or at least modified by Kent v. Campbell, 80 Idaho 57, 324 P.2d 398 (1958). Insofar as indicated by the opinion in Kent, no landlord-tenant (cotenant) relationship existed and the dispute there existed bet......
-
Jones v. Idaho Lumber, Inc., 8786
...contrary, we must uphold the verdict. I.C. § 13-219; Nelson v. Inland Motor Freight Co., 60 Idaho 443, 92 P.2d 790; Kent v. F. S. Campbell Co., 80 Idaho 57, 324 P.2d 398. Judgment Costs to respondent. PORTER, C. J., and SMITH, KNUDSON and McQUADE, JJ., concur. ...