South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Weil
Citation | 220 Ala. 568,126 So. 637 |
Decision Date | 19 December 1929 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 833. |
Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA COTTON GROWERS' CO-OP. ASS'N v. WEIL ET AL. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1930.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Action of assumpsit by the South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-operative Association against Isadore Weil and others partners doing business as Weil Bros. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
McDonald & McDonald, of Winnsboro, S. C., and Elliott & McLain, of Columbia, S. C., and Ball & Ball, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Well Stakely & Cater and Hill, HIll, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, all of Montgomery, for appellees.
This action is assumpsit by appellant against appellees to recover an amount alleged to be due on the purchase price of a large quantity of cotton, purchased by the defendants from the plaintiff in five separate transactions or contracts.
The complaint consists of the common counts, and special counts relating to each of the several transactions. The pleas were the general issue, payment, and accord and satisfaction.
The record is voluminous, consisting of approximately two thousand pages, and on this record appellant has made three hundred and forty assignments of error.
Our examination of the case, however, has been rendered less burdensome by the able argument and briefs of the parties, limiting consideration to questions of law arising from the refusal of special charges requested by the appellant, and the giving of the affirmative charge for the defendants.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the Act of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, approved March 29th, 1921, entitled "An Act to Promote and Further Co-operative Marketing." Acts 1921, No. 203 (32 St. at Large, p. 339).
Section 6 of the act provides:
The stated purposes for which the incorporation is formed, among others, are:
The corporation is managed by a board of not less than five directors, "elected by the members or stockholders from their own members," and this board is authorized to "elect from their members a president, one or more vice presidents and a secretary and treasurer."
The defendants are cotton merchants engaged extensively in buying and selling spot cotton, with their principal office and place of business in Montgomery, Ala., and maintain offices and warehouses in Columbus and Savannah Ga., and an office in New York.
The several different contracts of sale, out of which the controversy between the plaintiff and defendants arose, are similar in import and legal effect, and the statement of one of the transactions is deemed sufficient to develop the principles of law applicable.
The record shows that the board of directors of the plaintiff consists of eleven members, and what is referred to in the proceedings of the board as "the management" consists of the sales manager, his assistants, and the office manager. By resolution of the board of directors, adopted April 9, 1923, "the management" was given "carte blanche authority to sell cotton."
On May 15, 1923, Arthur Mazyck was re-elected sales manager, and James L. Respess was elected office manager. On September 12, 1923, a resolution was adopted by the board of directors authorizing the management "to sell cotton from time to time as it sees fit, with power to sell on call."
After negotiations conducted by the plaintiff's sales manager, by wire in its name, the defendants mailed to the plaintiff the following:
Number bales, 2,000 b/c (Two Thousand Bales)
Grade, 1,000 b/c Strict Mid., 1000 b/c Good Middling.
Growth and Staple, 7/8" to 1".
Price Per Pound, (St. Middling at 60 points on Dec. N.Y. on call.
(Gd. Middling at 100 points on Dec. N.Y. on call.
Freight paid to, Shipside, high density Savannah.
Shipment Time, First half of November.
Reimbursement, Payment against documents.
Terms, Seller's call on or before shipment.
This confirmation was signed by the defendant and "a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
..."[I]t is customary for courts to take judicial notice of what is or ought to be generally known." South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Weil, 220 Ala. 568, 126 So. 637, 641 (1929). "[W]e take judicial notice of the rules and regulations promulgated by authority of an act of Congres......
-
Price v. University of Alabama
...A contract is executory if neither party has fully performed his obligation to the other party. South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Weil, 220 Ala. 568, 126 So. 637 (1929). "[T]he partial performance of a contract, void under the statute of frauds, does not take it from under the ......
-
Norman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...A contract is executory if neither party has fully performed his obligation to the other party. South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Weil , 220 Ala. 568, 126 So. 637 (1929). "[T]he partial performance of a contract, void under the statute of frauds, does not take it from under the......
-
Price v. University of Alabama, No. CV-03-CO-01790-W (AL 10/23/2003)
...A contract is executory if neither party has fully performed his obligation to the other party. South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Weil, 220 Ala. 568, 126 So. 637 (1929). "[T]he partial performance of a contract, void under the statute of frauds, does not take it from under the ......