Scaife v. FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION, 13651.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 13651.,13651. |
| Citation | 167 F.2d 152 |
| Parties | SCAIFE v. FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
G. B. Oliver, Jr., of Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
G. D. Walker, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Little Rock, Ark., (James T. Gooch, U. S. Atty., of Little Rock, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and COLLET, Circuit Judges.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, an agency of the Department of Agriculture, was created by the Federal Crop Insurance Act for the purpose of providing Government insurance against loss in yield of crops due to unavoidable causes.1
In April, 1946, the Corporation insured the appellant, a cotton grower of Chicot County, Arkansas, against loss in yield of lint cotton and cottonseed (up to 75% of average yield) due to specified unavoidable causes. The insured suffered a loss in yield of his 1946 crop, which was covered by his contract of insurance and entitled him to receive from the Corporation 110,535 pounds of lint cotton. He furnished proofs of loss on November 12, 1946. Certificates of indemnity were issued to him by the Corporation January 4, 1947, for the amount of cotton claimed. On January 6, 1947, he demanded the cash value of the cotton specified in the certificates, and on January 17, 1947, the Corporation remitted to him $34,686.46, the market value of the cotton on January 6, 1947, which was 34.40 cents per pound.
On June 17, 1947, the insured brought this action to recover $9,119.14, upon the claim that he had, prior to October 9, 1946, given notice to the Corporation of his probable loss; that it had, prior to that date, inspected his cotton crops, which were about 70% harvested; that, at the time of the inspection, it was obvious that there would be due him from the Corporation under his contract of insurance about 110,000 pounds of cotton; that on October 9, 1946, he requested the Corporation to "fix the price" upon the estimated deficiency in yield by selling "the approximate amount of cotton he might be entitled to receive, the exact amount to be determined and final adjustment made at such time as he had completed his harvest and final proofs of loss had been furnished and approved by defendant the Corporation"; that his request was reasonable and practicable; that compliance therewith "would have worked to alleviate his economic distress caused by the failure of his cotton crop, and would have been of great assistance to him in maintaining his purchasing power; that under the terms of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, and as a sound business proposition, it was the duty of defendant to comply therewith, but that defendant wrongfully and unlawfully refused to do so"; that if the Corporation had complied with his request on October 9, 1946, he would have received 42.65 cents a pound for the cotton to which he was ultimately found to be entitled, instead of 34.40 cents, or a total of $9,119.14 more than he received in January, 1947; and that the Corporation is therefore indebted to him in that amount with interest, penalty, and attorney's fees.
The Corporation in its answer denied liability and asserted that the insured had been paid in full. It moved for a summary judgment of dismissal. The District Court granted the motion, and the insured has appealed.
Assuming that the insured's request of October 9, 1946, that the Corporation sell cotton for his account to fix the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Feldman
...same case, to deny the right of a grower to rely on representations such as the defendant advances here. And in Scaife v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 152, it bound a cotton grower exclusively to a method prescribed by regulation for determining the time of loss. On ......
-
United States v. Landsverk
...8 Cir., 282 F. 121. Plaintiff cites: Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10; Scaife v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 152; United States v. Feldman, D.C.Neb., 93 F.Supp. 3 By letter dated December 13, 1955, plaintiff's Acting Director of the Com......
-
United States v. Shaw
...Mock v. United States, 10 Cir., 183 F.2d 174; Frier v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 5 Cir., 152 F.2d 149, and Scaife v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 152. Counsel for defendant contends that by virtue of the acts and statements of agents of the Corporation, hereinbefore r......
-
United States v. Lein
...the government or read by the court, including United States v. Mayer, D. Minn.1956 #810 Civil (unpublished) and Scaife v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., 167 F.2d 152 (8th Cir. 1948), are either inapposite as involving somewhat differing language or are not persuasive. In Mayer for instance, liab......