Murray Co. v. Harrill
| Decision Date | 21 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 429.,429. |
| Citation | 51 F.2d 883 |
| Parties | MURRAY CO. v. HARRILL et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
S. P. Freeling of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Freeling & Box, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Thos. H. Owen, of Oklahoma City, Okl., and John C. Graves, of Wagoner, Okl., for appellees.
Before LEWIS and COTTERAL, Circuit Judges, and POLLOCK, District Judge.
The Murray Company brought this action against T. C. Harrill and J. A. Harris to recover upon two notes and an account, on which there was due $12,250.85, with interest and attorney's fees. The defendants answered, admitting their liability, but pleaded set-offs of approximately $21,450, as commissions earned by them on sales of fifteen cotton gins for plaintiff, pursuant to a written contract; and they prayed a recovery of the excess of their demands. The plaintiff replied, admitting the contract, but denying that defendants earned any commission except of 5 per cent. upon a sale to J. M. Hill, amounting to $1,350. The cause was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants for $108. Judgment was rendered on the verdict; and the plaintiff appeals.
The contract set out in the answer consisted of a letter of the company, accepted by the defendants. It provides in substance: The company agreed that defendants might sell its products in Oklahoma east of the Santa Fé Railroad for a commission of 10 per cent. and a like discount on their own purchases of gin machinery and steam power, and 5 per cent. on the sale of motors. The company had an agreement with John A. Simpson, of the Farmers' Educational and Co-Operative Union, to use his influence in promoting sales to members of the union and allied organizations. Where he had begun negotiations, the defendants were not to interfere, but would when called upon cooperate in securing a sale for one-half the above commission. W. O. Cauthon, a salesman of the company, was to assist them in any deal initiated by them, but where he should initiate it they were to have no commission. Their expense of travel was to be paid by the company. The contract was subject to cancellation by either of the parties on 15 days' written notice.
The defendants also allege in their answer what appears to be their views of the contract or modifications thereof to this effect: It was agreed and understood that their services would consist of soliciting purchasers of plaintiff's gin machinery, bringing them and salesmen of the company together, assisting purchasers in securing gin permits from the corporation commission of Oklahoma by proof of their qualifications and the necessity of the gins. They faithfully and diligently rendered these services with the knowledge and consent of the company, that it accepted the services, and by their co-operation with the salesmen the gins were sold and the commissions were thereby earned.
The defendants had the burden of proof. Their evidence was largely a departure from the contract terms. Its trend, instead of being adduced to show actual sales of gins, pursuant to the contract, showed oral negotiations and understandings, correspondence with purchasers and the company, services rendered in aiding customers to obtain gin permits from the corporation commission, and various conversations and acts relative to sales. In two instances, sales were claimed to patrons west of the railroad, with approval of the company.
There were objections at the outset, but they were soon abandoned. And both parties appear to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Surety & Ins. Corporation v. Murphy
...300, 69 L.Ed. 597; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 49 S.Ct. 263, 73 L.Ed. 979; Rouse v. Burnham, 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 709; Murray Company v. Harrill, 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 883. But contradictions and conflicts of evidence are for the jury, and where the evidence and the inferences fairly deducible f......
-
National Mut. Casualty Co. v. Eisenhower, 2182.
...300, 69 L.Ed. 597; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Rouse v. Burnham, 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 709; Murray Co. v. Harrill, 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 883; Central Surety & Insurance Corporation v. Murphy, 10 Cir., 103 F.2d 117. Contradictions and conflicts of evidence are for the t......
-
McCaffrey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
...proof to sustain the verdict. That was clearly insufficient. Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Murray Co. v. Harrill, 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 883. Moreover, there was direct and positive testimony by employees of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company store and by men......