Roberts v. Coffee

• Decision Date: 08 April 1927
• Docket Number: 2189
• Citation: 6 La.App. 323
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: ROBERTS v. COFFEE

6 La.App. 323

ROBERTS v. COFFEE

No. 2189

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

April 8, 1927

Rehearing Refused May 13, 1927.

Appeal from the Second Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Webster. Hon. Robert Roberts, Jr., Judge.

Action by A. D. Roberts against A. L. Coffee.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Judgment reversed and suit dismissed.

Drew &amp Drew, of Minden, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee.

Stewart & Stewart, of Minden, attorneys for defendant, appellant.

OPINION

ODOM J.

This is a suit to recover $ 665.20, alleged to be due plaintiff by defendant for twenty-six cords of "heading blocks" sold and delivered on the V. S. & P. Ry. Co.'s tracks at Willis Spur.

There was judgment in the lower court for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

OPINION

Only questions of fact are involved.

For a number of years prior to December, 1920, plaintiff was engaged in getting out timber and hauling it to the railroad to be sold. For a portion of the time at least the timber or "heading blocks" which plaintiff delivered on the railroad right-of-way was sold to the defendant, Coffee. Coffee contends that in all his dealings with plaintiff he was acting only as agent for the H. D. Alfrey Company, of Shreveport, which company furnished the money, and that he, Coffee, took up the timber or bolts and paid for them with his check drawn on the funds which had been furnished by Alfrey.

While there is considerable testimony on the point whether Coffee bought as agent for Alfrey & Company or whether he purchased for himself, we think that is not material, for the case hinges upon another point.

Whether Coffee was acting for himself or for another, unless the plaintiff established the contract on which he sues he cannot recover.

As we have reached the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove his contract, no other point need be considered.

The plaintiff, as stated, was engaged in putting "heading blocks" on the railroad, which blocks were usually sold either to Coffee for his own account, or to Alfrey & Company through Coffee as agent.

Bills of lading introduced in evidence show that plaintiff shipped to Alfrey at Shreveport eleven carloads of "heading blocks" in the months of August, September and October, 1920; but the testimony shows that in the month of October Coffee notified plaintiff that Alfrey could take no more of the blocks on account of financial embarrassment.

Plaintiff admits this, and admits that whatever arrangements he had had with Coffee individually or as agent theretofore were put to an end in October, 1920. All blocks delivered up to that time were paid for.

But Roberts, the plaintiff, contends that later, about December of that year, Mr. Coffee agreed to purchase the particular lot of blocks over which this controversy arose. In other words, that a new contract was made, and it is on this new contract which he sues.

The blocks were delivered on the railroad by plaintiff and are there yet if they were not moved after the trial of this suit in February, 1924.

Plaintiff testified positively and unequivocally that Coffee agreed to purchase the blocks. Coffee, on the contrary, swore just as positively and emphatically that he did not agree to purchase them. The testimony of these two witnesses, the parties to the suit, is as contradictory and conflicting as could possibly be.

If there were no other testimony in the record, we might be in some doubt as to whether there was a contract, in which event the doubt would have to be resolved against the plaintiff, for he carried the burden of making out his case at least by a preponderance of the testimony.

The...