Oregon Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Lentz
Decision Date | 13 February 1923 |
Citation | 212 P. 811,107 Or. 561 |
Parties | OREGON GROWERS' CO-OP. ASS'N v. LENTZ ET AL. [*] |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; George G. Bingham, Judge.
Suit by the Oregon Growers' Co-operative Association against August Lentz and another. From a decree granting injunction both parties appeal. Affirmed.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant August Lentz for the specific performance of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on April 22, 1920, and for an injunction enjoining him from selling any of the loganberries mentioned and described in the contract, to any one other than the plaintiff, as provided by said contract.
The plaintiff is a co-operative, marketing association, organized pursuant to chapter 6 of title 39 of the Code, comprising sections 6954 to 6981, inclusive, Or. L. The association is composed exclusively of persons who are actual producers of agricultural or horticultural products, and is not conducted for profit. The purpose for which it was instituted was for the mutual benefit of its members, all of whom have executed contracts with the plaintiff similar to defendant's contract.
The contract itself is an agency contract and appoints plaintiff as agent of the defendant August Lentz to market his product for his benefit, and without profit to the association. The period covered by the contract includes the years 1920 to 1924, both inclusive. The subject-matter of the contract is the sale and disposal of loganberries grown by or for the defendant.
The complaint alleges the corporate existence of the plaintiff the objects and purposes for which it was formed; that the defendant is a grower of loganberries and is a stockholder in the association; that he entered into a contract with the plaintiff and performed it upon his part during the years 1920 and 1921, but had failed and refused to perform during the year 1922, prior to the commencement of the suit; and that all of the stockholders, as well as the plaintiff, are growers of like or similar products and have entered into like contracts with the plaintiff. It sets forth in verbatim a copy of the contract, and alleges that the plaintiff has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law. The complaint prays that the defendant be compelled to specifically perform the contract, and that he be enjoined from selling the loganberries contracted for to any one other than the plaintiff.
By their answer the defendants admitted the execution of the contract by August Lentz, but denied the other allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively alleged that the defendant on or about January 1, 1922, leased his premises to his codefendant, Benjamin Lentz, who was not a party to the contract, and that Benjamin Lentz, and not August Lentz, had complete charge and control of the production and disposal of the loganberries produced during the year 1922, and had harvested and disposed of the same, and that the defendant August Lentz had no power to control the sale or disposal thereof.
The reply denied all of the averments contained in the answer. The contract attached to and made a part of the complaint reads as follows:
Eighth. The grower shall have the right to plant any crop at any time in his free discretion; but if the grower produces any agricultural or horticultural products which come within the scope of the association's activities as established by contracts or by notice, or acquires or owns an interest in any thereof, during the term hereof, they shall all be included under the terms of this agreement and must be sold only to the association.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Rock Royal Noyes v. Same Dairymen Leagueass v. Same Metropolitanmilk Producers Bargaining Agency v. Same 8212 828
...117 Wash. 430, 201 P. 773, 204 P. 811, 25 A.L.R. 1077; Poultry Producers v. Barlow, 189 Cal. 278, 208 P. 93; Oregon Growers Co-op. Asso. v. Lentz, 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811; South Carolina Cotton Growers English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Milk Producers Marketing Co. v. Bell, 234 Ill.App. 22......
-
Manchester Dairy Sys., Inc. v. Hayward
...a fair market price." Harrell v. Cane Growers* Co-op. Ass'n (1925) 160 Ga. 30, 50, 126 S. E. 531, 539; Oregon Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Lentz (1923) 107 Or. 561, 579, 580, 212 P. 811; Dark Tobacco Growers' Ass'n v. Dunn et al. (1924) 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S. W. As in these cases, so in the inst......
-
Elephant Butte Alfalfa Ass'n v. Rouault.
...the nature of its business as a co-operative concern without capital stock, would be entitled to equitable relief. Oregon Growers' Co-operative Ass'n v. Lentz 212 P. 811; Washington Cranberry Ass'n v. Moore, 117 Wash. 430, 201 P. 773, 204 P. 811 [25 A. L. R. 1077]; Grant County Board v. All......
-
Liberty Warehouse Co v. Burley Tobacco Growers Marketing Ass, CO-OP
...Ass'n v. Schulte, 113 Kan. 672, 216 P. 311; Brown v. Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, 132 Miss. 859, 96 So. 849; Oregon Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Lentz, 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811; Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall, 113 Tex. 273, 253 S. W. 1101; Potter v. Dark Tobacco Growers' Ann'n, 201 Ky.......