Nutrena Mills, Inc. v. Yoder

Citation187 F. Supp. 415
Decision Date30 September 1960
Docket NumberCiv. No. 634.
PartiesNUTRENA MILLS, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. J. Paul YODER and Lowell Yoder, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles A. Hastings and Wayne C. Collins, of Elliott, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for plaintiff.

A. C. Cahill, of Messer, Hamilton & Cahill, Iowa City, Iowa, for defendants.

GRAVEN, District Judge.

The plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas and was and is authorized to do business in the State of Iowa. The defendants are residents of Iowa County, Iowa, and are citizens of the State of Iowa. In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover money allegedly owing to it by both of the defendants for advancements made by it to finance turkey raising operations. The plaintiff also seeks to recover money allegedly owing to it by the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, for advancements made by it to finance the raising of hogs. The advancements were made pursuant to certain written contracts. The defendants executed promissory notes for the advancements. The amounts sought to be recovered by the plaintiff are the amounts unpaid on those notes. The defendants have counter-claimed against the plaintiff. They allege that the plaintiff breached the contracts in question by prematurely terminating the defendants' credit and refusing to deliver to them sufficient feed to mature defendants' turkeys and hogs. The damages claimed by them are in excess of the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants made due and timely demand for a jury trial. The plaintiff made a motion for summary judgment, which motion is here being considered. The plaintiff took extensive discovery depositions of the defendants. The defendants took extensive discovery depositions of those connected with the plaintiff who had to do with the transactions. The depositions taken by the parties were to be considered by the Court in passing upon the motion. Because of those depositions, the Court has before it in ruling on the motion probably all the evidence that would be presented at the trial of the case. The limitations to be observed by the Court in ruling upon motions for summary judgment were noted by this Court in the cases of United States v. Daubendiek, D.C.1959, 25 F.R.D. 50, and United States v. Tholen, D.C.1960, 186 F.Supp. 346.

The defendant, J. Paul Yoder, is a farmer who has been engaged in the raising of turkeys since 1934. He has also been engaged in the raising of hogs. The defendant Lowell Yoder is his son. It is the practice of the plaintiff to make available to turkey raisers various credit arrangements for the financing of their turkey programs. Under these arrangements, the growers become obligated to purchase feed for their turkeys from the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, had entered into such turkey finance contracts during the 1955 and 1956 turkey seasons. The present action principally concerns advances made by the plaintiff under turkey finance contracts which were entered into for the 1957 turkey season. The complaint is in three counts. Count I states a cause of action against the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, individually for certain advances made pursuant to a turkey finance contract between the plaintiff and that defendant. Count II states a cause of action against the partnership of J. Paul Yoder and Son as well as against J. Paul Yoder individually and Lowell Yoder individually for certain advances made pursuant to a turkey finance contract between the plaintiff and the partnership of J. Paul Yoder and Son. Count III states a cause of action against the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, individually for advances made to that defendant pursuant to a hog financing contract which he entered into with Maas Grain and Feed of Iowa City, Iowa, which contract has been assigned to the plaintiff.

The two turkey finance contracts involved herein are on printed forms. The forms are identical except as to the filled-in items. The contract entered into with J. Paul Yoder individually provided that the plaintiff was to furnish financial assistance to that defendant so as to assist him in the raising of 15,000 turkeys for the 1957 turkey season. The writing provided that the total amount of financial assistance to be extended was not to exceed $42,750. This figure was, according to the terms of the written agreement, to be allocated as follows: ten cents per bird for insurance; ten cents per bird for supplies; eighty-five cents apiece for the 15,000 poults; and thirty pounds of feed per bird computed at six cents a pound. The contract between the plaintiff and J. Paul Yoder and Son provided for financial assistance in the raising of 2,500 turkeys during the 1957 season. The writing provided that the credit extended was not to exceed $7,125 and the per bird allowances were the same as those in the contract just discussed. The other material provisions of the two contracts are identical. Each provided that the defendants were to purchase only Nutrena feeds during the season covered by the contract. Poults and supplies could be purchased from anyone the defendants chose. Upon the receipt of any poults, supplies, insurance, or feed purchased, the defendants were to execute and deliver to the seller thereof a promissory note on one of the plaintiff's forms for the amount of the purchase price. The defendants were to execute to plaintiff, when so requested by that corporation, first chattel mortgages on their turkeys, feed, or supplies. The defendants were to allow the plaintiff's employees to inspect their turkeys whenever the plaintiff wished to have them do so. All sums owing from defendants to the plaintiff, whether evidenced by promissory notes or not, were to be payable on or before January 15, 1958, with interest. Both contracts specifically provide that "this contract contains all of the agreements between the parties hereto in connection with this transaction and cannot be varied orally." The contract with J. Paul Yoder individually is dated November 8, 1956, and is signed by J. Paul Yoder. The contract with J. Paul Yoder and Son is dated December 13, 1956, and is signed "J. Paul Yoder and Son by J. Paul Yoder." Both contracts provide that they do not become effective until accepted at the offices of the plaintiff company. The former contract bears the signature of Nutrena credit officer, G. E. Turner, dated January 23, 1957. The latter contract bears the signature of Mr. Turner dated January 29, 1957. It is assumed that these are the dates on which the Nutrena office formally accepted the contracts.

As previously mentioned, the third contract involved in this action was entered into between the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, and Maas Grain and Feed, a Nutrena dealer in Iowa City, Iowa. It provides that the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, was to be given credit by Maas Grain and Feed for the purchase of 25,000 pounds of Nutrena feeds for twenty sows and two hundred thirty pigs. The type of feed is specified but no dollar limitations are provided except that the contract is limited to 25,000 pounds of feed at "dealer's price." The contract provides that with each purchase of feed, the buyer was to execute and deliver to Maas Grain and Feed a promissory note for the full purchase price. The contract, signed by J. Paul Yoder and an officer of Maas Grain and Feed, is dated April 29, 1957. It was assigned to the plaintiff by Maas on May 1, 1957. The contract provides that the written contract contains all of the agreements between the parties to that contract relative to the transactions described in said contract.

Plaintiff alleges that it has advanced $54,432.17 to the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, pursuant to their turkey finance contract. Promissory notes have been given as evidence of the obligation as provided in the written contract. The interest on these notes at maturity (January 15, 1958) amounted to $2,134.34 thus making a total of $56,566.51. The total amount received in payment on these notes from the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, is $39,805.77, leaving a balance yet owing of $16,760.74 plus interest from maturity. The advances by the plaintiff to J. Paul Yoder and Son under their turkey finance contract totalled, including interest up to maturity, $10,134.99. These advancements are all evidenced by promissory notes and the unpaid balance thereon is $1,964.53 plus interest from maturity. One note has been given by the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, to secure advances made to him under the hog raising contract with Maas Grain and Feed. That note was executed after the contract had been assigned to the plaintiff and was made payable to the plaintiff for the amount of $798.50 on demand.

All notes executed under the three contracts previously described provide for reasonable attorney fees for collection after maturity. The amount of damages prayed for by the plaintiff in this action is the unpaid balance on all notes of the defendants held by it, plus interest, plus reasonable attorney fees.

In his deposition the defendant, J. Paul Yoder, admits the execution and delivery of the three written finance contracts and each and every one of the many notes involved. The defendant maintains, however, that the turkey finance contracts under which all but one of these notes were delivered, were delivered to the plaintiff on the express condition, agreed to orally, that the plaintiff was to furnish to the defendants sufficient feed to completely feed out the defendants' turkeys for the 1957 season. The defendants allege a breach of this condition by the plaintiff in that the latter refused to make any more feed available to the defendants after October 15, 1957, thus causing an extensive loss in the marketing of the birds.

The showing of the defendants was that the turkey finance contracts and the notes representing the advances made...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • International Mill. Co. v. Gisch
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1965
    ...as bearing on the question of design or plan. Hall v. Crow, supra, loc. cit. 91, 34 N.W.2d 195. Judge Graven in Nutrena Mills, Inc. v. Yoder, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 415 (turkey raising case) thoroughly analyzes the law and holds certain oral testimony inadmissible but that was a contract and not......
  • Yoder v. Nutrena Mills, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 20, 1961
    ...of definitions by other authority. This phase of the case is summarized by the trial court in its opinion, Nutrena Mills, Inc. v. Yoder, D.C.N.D.Iowa 1960, 187 F.Supp. 415, 419: "The instant case is principally concerned with an application of the Iowa parol evidence rule. This rule, rather......
  • Armour and Company v. Nard, 71-1433
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 7, 1972
    ...thereto and inconsistent therewith was not admissible. Yoder v. Nutrena Mills, Inc., 294 F.2d 505, 512-516 (CA8 1961) affirming 187 F.Supp. 415 (N.D.Iowa 1960); Hetherington Letter Co. v. Paulson Construction Co., 171 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa 1969), supplemented 173 N.W.2d 575, 576 (Iowa 1970). We ......
  • Garloff v. Shaffer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 11, 2020
    ...the Iowa parol evidence rule. This rule, rather than being a rule of evidence, is a rule of substantive law." Nutrena Mills, Inc. v. Yoder, 187 F. Supp. 415, 419 (N.D. Iowa 1960). "When an agreement is fully integrated, the parol-evidence rule forbids the use of extrinsic evidence introduce......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT