S.J. Van Lill Co. v. Frederick City Packing Co.

Decision Date04 May 1928
Docket Number6.
Citation141 A. 898,155 Md. 303
PartiesS. J. VAN LILL CO. v. FREDERICK CITY PACKING CO.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1928.

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Walter I. Dawkins Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the Frederick City Packing Company against the S. J. Van Lill Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial awarded.

Parke J., dissenting.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Francis Key Murray and Edward J. Colgan, Jr., both of Baltimore (Karr & Colgan of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Philip B. Perlman, of Baltimore (Wirt A. Duvall, Jr., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

OFFUTT J.

The Frederick City Packing Company, a corporation, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling canned goods. The S. J. Van Lill Company, a corporation, is engaged in the city of Baltimore in the manufacture and sale of various food products. Thomas H. Roberts & Co., a corporation, is engaged in the commission brokerage business in Philadelphia, and Howard E. Jones, trading as Howard E. Jones & Co., is engaged in a similar business in Baltimore, and they were all so engaged in 1925. Thomas H. Roberts & Co., having been since 1891 the selling agents for the Frederick City Packing Company, in 1925 sold all the canned goods manufactured by it.

In January, 1925, Howard E. Jones telephoned orders to Roberts & Co. for $11,000 cases of canned corn, but later directed it to make out a contract for 10,000 cases of that order in the name of the S. J. Van Lill Company. On January 23, 1925, Roberts & Co. wrote Jones a letter in which it said:

"Referring to your telephone order to-day, we have booked you for 5,000 cases of the Frederick City Packing Company's No. 2 tin standard unsweetened corn, under Pride of Valley label, out of the 1925 packing, at $1.00 per dozen f. o. b. Frederick, Md., to be covered by our regular pro rata contract, but with 75% delivery guaranteed. Subject, however, to our approval of the names of the buyers, which you will submit to us.
This also applies to additional order 'phoned in for 6,000 cases more at $1.00 per dozen f. o. b. Frederick, Md., and we have protected you likewise on this, making a total of 11,000 cases awaiting buyers' names."

Jones then executed a memorandum of sale, dated January 23, 1925, which contained this statement:

"Sold to Howard E. Jones & Co., Baltimore, Md., for account of Thos. Roberts & Co., Philadelphia:
11,000 cases No. 2 Frederick City Packing Company standard unsweetened crushed corn at $1.00 per dozen.
Remarks: If packer's label to be used, buyer's option of the following brands: Proclamation, Pride of Valley, Artic, Richland, Mountain View or Early Morning Bloom.
If shipped unlabeled or under buyer's label, allowance of $1.50 per M. for labels.
1925 pack.
Future contract will follow.
Terms: Cash, less 1 1/2% ten days, f. o. b. Frederick, Md.
Ship: When packed--shipping instructions to be furnished.
Howard E. Jones & Co., Brokers."

On January 24th Roberts & Co. wrote Jones as follows, in which it said in part:

"* * * We guarantee the pack this year to equal last year's samples. We are sending samples under the Pride of the Valley label, that will represent what we guarantee to deliver for future delivery, namely strictly unsweetened crushed corn. Now if they want the extra sweetened this would cost them 5 cents per dozen more, but these samples only represent the unsweetened, as they did not pack any of the extra sweetened last year."

On February 7, 1925, Jones wrote Roberts & Co. this letter:

"As per telephone conversation, please insert S. J. Van Lill Company, Baltimore, Md., as the buyers for the 10,000 cases of Frederick City, 1925 pack corn you have booked for us.
On the 1,000 cases of the same goods insert Wagner Bros., Baltimore, as the buyers.
Also let us have 1/2 dozen tins of No. 10 last year's pack, so that Van Lill can start working on same, and send us samples of the different labels that you will use on the pack of corn, as we understand you have several labels there.
Let us have contracts for buyers' signatures."

On February 9, 1925, Roberts & Co. wrote Jones that:

"We have your letter of the 7th and as requested we have assigned 10,000 cases of your purchase of Frederick City corn to S. J. Van Lill Company, Baltimore, and 1,000 cases to Wagner Bros., and are inclosing contracts herewith."

And on February 13, 1925, Jones wrote Roberts & Co., inclosing a "properly signed contract covering your sale to S. J. Van Lill Company of 10,000 cases of Frederick City Packing Company's corn," described as "No. 2 tin standard unsweetened corn," at $1 per dozen f. o. b. factory under packer's label. Under that contract the seller agreed to deliver 75 per cent. of the goods sold, and to furnish as promptly as possible "cans well filled with sound wholesome fruit" of the "packing of 1925." It guaranteed that the goods sold should conform to the National Food and Drug Act, and in lieu of a guaranty against "swells" made an allowance of one-fourth of 1 per cent.

On August 13, 1925, Roberts & Co. wrote Jones that the Frederick City Packing Company was demanding immediate shipping instructions for all corn orders, and on the following day Jones wrote, giving shipping instruction for 725 of the 1,000 cases sold to Wagner Bros., and on August 19, 1925, he wrote Roberts & Co. as follows:

"It seems as though unsweetened corn doesn't sell--we have been offering our trade the orders booked for Lord Mott Company and S. J. Van Lill Company, as they informed us they could not sell this corn--buyers want sweetened corn.
Now both of these buyers are anxious to sell this unsweetened corn. Can't you help them out? You know just what trade uses unsweetened corn. Your quotations to-day are $1.05 per dozen, factory--this corn was booked with you at $1.00 per dozen--we offer it to you to-day at $1.00 per dozen, factory. It strikes us that you would be only too glad to have it in your possession.
We are making special efforts again this week to sell it and trust we will be successful, but don't you make shipment of either of these two orders until you have received specific shipping instructions from us. We know you aren't ready yet to ship, as you just started packing corn.
We asked you to send us twelve samples but you informed us you could not do so at this time. We wanted these samples to help us dispose of this corn, and then we could immediately give you shipping instructions, unless you can give us orders for it yourselves."

Again on the same day he wrote:

"Supplementing our favor of the 14th, after the 25 cases which we gave you instructions for of No. 2 Pride of Valley brand crushed corn yesterday, there remains yet in Wagner Bros. order for 1,000 cases 250 cases that no instructions have been given you on, so you will please ship these 250 cases, and 750 cases part of the order booked for S. J. Van Lill Company, making 1,000 cases in all of No. 2 Pride of Valley brand standard crushed corn, to Howard E. Jones & Co., c/o B. & O. Delivery Camden Warehouse, Baltimore, sending the invoice to us, made out in S. J. Van Lill Company's name.
We are doing our best to dispose of this corn for Van Lill as per our letter to you earlier in the day."

Following that letter 1,000 cases of canned corn were shipped by the Frederick City Packing Company as directed and on August 29, 1925, the Van Lill Company wrote Roberts & Co. as follows:

"Referring to the 750 cases No. 2 tins Pride of Valley corn shipped in car consigned to Howard E. Jones & Co. as per your invoice of the 25th instant, beg to advise that we drew samples from this car which has arrived at Camden warehouses and compared with sample you sent us of last year's pack and there is as much difference as between night and day. This corn is bitter, tough, sloppy, poorly filled and yellow color. Sample of last year's corn shows up as a good consistency and white color.
We therefore beg to advise that we cannot use this corn and same is at Camden warehouses subject to your orders and disposition. * * *
P. S.--We advised Howard E. Jones & Co. some days ago to send on samples of this new pack before making any shipments."

On August 31st it wrote another letter in which it said, in part:

"Beg to advise that we cut additional cans to-day in Howard E. Jones & Co.'s office, of this lot, and found two cans that were sour and balance of the cans cut with nothing but water showing on the tops and no corn in sight, which shows that same is very poor fill and sloppy.
Howard E. Jones & Co. has requested us to write you further, as they state that they had a telephone conversation with you to-day in reference to this lot of corn, and that you requested us to make an offer on same.
We beg to advise that we would not have this corn at any price, and furthermore, wish to advise that, as the car that has just been shipped under date of the 25th instant represents the contract we have with you for 10,000 cases, we will not take any of this lot of corn and will consider the contract canceled out. We bought standard goods, and therefore we expected to get just what we bought."

But prior to those two letters, on August 22, 1925, the Van Lill Company had written Roberts that:

"We have had several cans of the Frederick City Packing Company's last year corn which our salesmen have shown to the trade, and they find it impossible to interest any of their customers in this corn for the reasons that it is sloppy.
They also find that sweetened corn of a good consistency and superior pack is offered at lower prices than we can offer this corn of inferior quality.
Now,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Az v. Shinseki
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • September 30, 2013
    ...the plaintiff's wife that he did not complain of any injury from a prior accident). 17.See, e.g., S.J. Van Lill Co. v. Frederick City Packing Co., 155 Md. 303, 141 A. 898, 903–04 (1928) (holding the absence of complaints from another purchaser inadmissible because, given the many possible r......

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