Schultz v. Farmers' Elevator Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 1916
• Docket Number: No. 30502.,30502.
• Parties: SCHULTZ v. FARMERS' ELEVATOR CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

174 Iowa 667

156 N.W. 716

SCHULTZ

v.FARMERS' ELEVATOR CO.

No. 30502.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 11, 1916.

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; B. F. Cummings, Judge.

Action at law to recover on an oral contract for the sale of 778 bushels of shelled corn, at 73 cents per bushel. Trial to a jury, and at the close of the testimony the court sustained a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Bradford & Johnson, of Marshalltown, for appellant.

F. E. Northrup and Binford & Farber, all of Marshalltown, for appellee.

PRESTON, J.

Plaintiff claims he sold defendant 778 bushels and 2 pounds of shelled corn at the agreed price of 73 cents per bushel, making a total of $567.96, on which he had been paid $459.02, leaving as due him $108.94, and the suit is to recover this balance. The delivery of that many bushels of shelled corn is admitted by defendant, but its claim is that the corn was to grade No. 3, and admits it was to pay 73 cents per bushel if it did so grade. Defendant also claims that if the corn would not grade No. 3, then it was to handle the corn for terminal price, less 8 cents for handling. Plaintiff denied he sold the corn to grade No. 3, and denies that defendant said, if it did not grade 3, that it would ship and give him what it graded.

As a separate defense, defendant pleaded that the matter of dispute as to the value and price of the corn claimed to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant arose after the shipment thereof to St. Louis, Mo., which was the market destination of said corn, and that it was subject to inspection, and that upon inspection the corn was of no grade and was not corn of the kind and quality the plaintiff represented and pretended he owned and desired to sell, but that, on the contrary, it was spoiled and damaged corn, and that defendant was liable to plaintiff only for the market value of no grade corn; that defendant settled and adjusted said matter of dispute with the plaintiff by compromise and paid to plaintiff by check the sum and amount to which plaintiff was justly entitled; and that plaintiff accepted said check in full settlement and caused the same to be cashed and received and used the proceeds thereof, and that there has been an accord and satisfaction.

The motion to direct a verdict was upon five grounds: (1) That the plaintiff has failed to sustain the material averments of his petition. (2) That plaintiff has pleaded a sale of specific property at a given price, and no proof of such sale or that any price was fixed has been introduced. (3) That plaintiff seeks to recover on an account or a contract for the sale of certain corn at a certain price, and that the proof fails to support such claim, and shows that he is entitled to recover, if at all, upon a quantum meruit. (4) That the only proof of any contract is that set up by the defendant in its answer, and that such contract has been fully complied with. (5) That there has been a settlement and accord and satisfaction. The record shows that the motion was sustained generally.

[1][2] 1. The issue as to whether under the undisputed evidence there was an accord and satisfaction will be first taken up and disposed of. We are of opinion that the undisputed evidence shows that there was an accord and satisfaction, and that the motion was properly sustained upon this ground, if no other. It will be necessary to refer as briefly as may be to the testimony.

Plaintiff testifies that he sold the corn to a Mr. Stewart, an officer of the defendant company, at 73 cents per bushel. He says further:

“I went to the elevator to get my money some time after I delivered the last load and saw Mr. Stewart and told him I would like to get my money for the corn. He figured it out and handed me a check. I told him it wasn't quite enough, and asked him what he figured the corn at, and he said 59 cents. I told him it was not right, and told him I wanted more money.”

He says Stewart did not tell him why he figured the corn at 59 cents, and did not tell him that the corn had been spoiled, and denies that he sold the corn as No. 3 corn.

“He told me how many bushels, and figured it up 778 bushels and 2 pounds, at 59 cents per bushel. I told him I took the money because I had a note to pay, and told him I was not satisfied, and if it was not for that I would not have taken it. I took the check and went to the bank and got my money. The amount of the check was $459.02. I got the money two or three weeks after I delivered the corn. About a week after I got the check I saw Mr. Clark; Clark did not tell me it had been inspected by the government inspector at St. Louis and was damaged. He said it was damaged, and that was the reason he figured it at 59 cents a bushel; he told me that was the returns that he got from the people of St. Louis to whom he had shipped; he did not tell me at that time that that was the way they settled with their customers for that kind of corn. I figured with Stewart, but went to see Clark afterwards; Clark was manager of the defendant company. I did not tell him that would be a settlement of it; I did not say anything. My corn was not damaged.”

This is the substance of plaintiff's testimony upon this point. Stewart, president of the defendant company, says that plaintiff wanted his money for the corn; that when he wrote the check witness told plaintiff it did not figure as much as plaintiff expected, and plaintiff did not like it. He says:

“When he came to settle he wanted his money for his corn. I looked in the book and saw how much it was figured. Mr. Clark had put the price on. I figured from that price, 59 cents per bushel. I told him it was not good corn. It was rejected corn, and he thought he had good corn, and insisted on my taking it for 73 cents without grade; I wouldn't buy it that way, and he didn't have anything more to say at that time, but accepted his check and went off. About three days after that he came back and said he was not satisfied with his settlement and wanted more money. I told him we was paying so much for grade corn. He didn't want to sell his corn that way, and I told him I couldn't do any different with him than others. He said he had No. 3 corn, and I told him if he had 3 corn he would get his 73 cents; if he didn't, he wouldn't. I told him we could not pay him 73 cents for the corn, unless it was graded at the terminal, and if they graded it at that he could have 73 cents, and if not we didn't know what he was going to get, and he sold me his corn on them terms; Mr. Clark handled and shipped the corn and got the returns. All I did after that was to figure his check from Mr. Clark's figures on the book, what he was to have, and he accepted his check and got it and went off. Afterwards he came back and said he was not satisfied with the settlement. When I gave him the check he did not say he would not accept it.”

...