Red Star Milling Co. v. Moses
| Decision Date | 05 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | 32246 |
| Citation | 169 So. 785,176 Miss. 634 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | RED STAR MILLING CO. v. MOSES et al |
1 SALES.
Acceptance by buyer of installment defective in quality is not of itself equivalent to an assent to receive subsequent installments of similarly inferior goods.
2 SALES.
Under contract for sale of flour whereby buyers could not inspect it for defects without breaking sacks and without paying for it, buyers held justified in declining to receive future deliveries of flour after first defective delivery, where seller, when advised of defects in flour, indicated to buyers that seller considered flour delivered to be of required quality and would continue to deliver flour of same quality.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Yazoo County HON. J. P. ALEXANDER, Judge.
Suit by the Red Star Milling Company against Lillie Moses and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Robertson & Robertson, and Chas. S. Campbell, all of Jackson, and Campbell & Campbell, of Yazoo City, for appellant.
The appellees having elected to retain and use the defective flour, and not having offered to return the same, are bound by such election and cannot defend on the ground of breach of warranty of quality.
Tropical Oil Co. v. Mangum and Hatcher, 155 Miss. 876, 125 So. 248; Attala County v. Morrissey-Eastern Tractor Co., 162 Miss. 768, 139 So. 866; Rouse Drug Co. v. Columbia Scale Co., 164 Miss. 640, 146 So. 297.
Appellees having accepted and used a part of the flour purchased, after knowledge of its defective quality, elected to treat the contract as binding and are bound to accept the unshipped balance.
Hytken Bros. v. International Dress Co., 155 Miss. 469, 124 So. 653.
Where contract is for delivery of goods in separate installments a defect in quality in one installment will not affect the seller's right to recover damages for breach by the buyer as to the remaining installments.
55 C. J. 1029; 24 R. C. L. 284, sec. 564; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N.Y. 348, 25 Am. Rep. 203; Craig v. Lane, 212 Mass. 195, 98 N.E. 685; Guernsey v. West Coast Lbr. Co., 87 Cal. 249, 25 P. 414; Clark v. Wheeling Steel Works, 3 C. C. A. 600, 3 U. S. App. 355, 53 F. 494; Stelwagon v. Wilmington Coal Gas Co., 2 Mary. (Del.) 184, 42 A. 449; Henderson Elevator Co. v. North Georgia Mill Co., 126 Ga. 279, 55 S.E. 50; Whiting Foundry & Equipment Co. v. Heisch, 121 Ill.App. 373; McMullar Coal Co. v. Champion Coated Paper Co., 138 S.W. 755; Maynard v. Render, 95 Ga. 652, 23 S.E. 193; Morris v. Wilbaux, 159 Ill. 627, 43 N.E. 837; Jones Service, Inc., v. Goodnow-Pearson Co., 242 Mass. 594, 136. N.E. 623, 29 A. L. R. 1513; Thomas-Huyck-Martin Co. v. Gray, 94 Ark. 9, 140 Am. St. Rep. 93, 125 S.W. 659; C. A. Wooten v. BaineAdams Co., 146 Ark. 162, 226 S.W. 134; Miller v. Moore, 83 Ga. 684, 6 L. R. A. 374, 20 Am. St Rep. 329, 10 S.E. 360; Lyon v. Bertram, 20 How. 149, 15 L.Ed. 847.
To constitute an anticipatory breach it must appear that the seller has unequivocally refused to ship goods of the quality required by the contract.
23 R. C. L. 1408, sec. 234; 13 C. J. 654, sec. 727; Blackburn v. Reilly, 47 N. J. L. 299, 54 Am. Rep. 159, 1 A. 27; Harding W. & C. Co. v. York Knitting Mills, 142 F. 228; United States v. Smoot, 82 U.S. 660, 21 L.Ed. 107; J. W. Ellison Sons Co. v. Flat Top Grocery Co., 69 W.Va. 380, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 539. 71 S.E. 291; Oswega Pulp Co. v. Stecher Lithographing Co., 215 N.Y. 98, 109 N.E. 92, L. R. A. 1916B 257; Haring Whitman & Co. v. York Knitting Mills, 142 F. 228; John Deere Plow Co. v. Shellbarger, 140 Tenn. 123, 203 S.W. 756.
Appellees by their notice of recoupment under the general issue and their failure to give notice of anticipatory breach or justification for their breach of the contract admitted appellant's right to recover, and this admission was not affected by their withdrawal of their notice of recoupment.
Hoover Commercial Co. v. Humphrey, 66 So. 214, 107 Miss. 810; Bessler & Co. v. Leakesville Bank, 140 Miss. 537, 106 So. 445; Tittle v. Bonner, 53 Miss. 578; 57 C. J., page 359, sec. 1, and page 525, sec. 195.
J. G. Holmes, of Yazoo City, for appellees.
There can be no doubt, under the evidence in this case, and the finding of the jury, that the appellees promptly complained to the appellant of the inferior quality of the flour and notified the appellant that they could not accept further shipments of this same inferior quality. The appellant did not offer to ship a better quality of Keno flour or a quality of Keno that would give satisfaction as guaranteed by the contracts, but it insisted that the quality of Keno flour had not changed, and would never change. In other words, the effect of this was to say to the appellees that they were going to get in subsequent shipments the same quality of Keno flour that had been sent in the last two shipments. We think as a matter of law that this was sufficient to justify the appellees in declining to accept the subsequent shipments, but the trial court ruled more favorably to the appellant than we think the appellant was entitled to, submitting to the jury the question as to whether or not the appellant insisted upon filling the balance of the contracts with the same quality of flour as that contained in the last two shipments and shown to be defective. On this favorable ruling of the trial court the jury found against the appellant and found that the appellant had insisted upon filling the remainder of the contracts with the same character of defective flour as that complained of. We say, therefore, that as the record stands, the appellant must be held to have declined to fill the balance of the contracts with a quality of flour other than that shown to have been defective, and that appellees were therefore justified in declining to accept further deliveries under said contracts of such defective quality of flour.
The real and only issue tried in this case was that of the right of appellees to decline to accept further deliveries of flour of the same quality as that shown to have been defective. It must be remembered that these contracts had written therein the provision, "satisfaction guaranteed." The flour, of course, was sold to the appellees, who were wholesalers, for the purpose of resale by them to merchants or dealers, and by the merchants or dealers to the consumers. It certainly must be admitted that if the flour was of such inferior quality as that it could not be disposed of to the trade, and therefore could not serve the purposes for which the appellees bought it, it could not give satisfaction as guaranteed by the contracts, and could not, in fact, be satisfactory to any reasonable man.
In view of the fact that the contracts involved were for flour, which is an article for human consumption and a commodity that addresses itself to the fancy, taste, sensibility or judgment of the individual, and in view of the further fact that the contracts contained the provision, "satisfaction guaranteed," we think that there is a serious question in this case as to whether or not the appellant did not render the appellees the sole judges of their satisfaction, without regard to the justice or reasonableness of their decision.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying the appellant, the plaintiff in the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chatham v. All Am. Sales
...permits, although the purchaser had previously received under the contract lumber of this grade. In the case of Red Star Milling Co. v. Moses, 176 Miss. 634, 169 So. 785, this Court held that acceptance by the buyer of an installment of flour defective in quality was not in itself equivalen......