Staley v. Fazel Bros. Co., 48813

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: GARFIELD
• Citation: 75 N.W.2d 253,247 Iowa 644
• Parties: Glen STALEY, Appellant, v. FAZEL BROS. CO., a Corporation, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 48813,48813
• Decision Date: 06 March 1956

Page 253

75 N.W.2d 253 247 Iowa 644 Glen STALEY, Appellant,
v.
FAZEL BROS. CO., a Corporation, Appellee. No. 48813. Supreme Court of Iowa. March 6, 1956.

Page 254

Leming & Hobson, Hampton, for appellant.

Donald J. Shirley, Perry, for appellee.

GARFIELD, Justice.

This is a law action tried without a jury to recover $1,800 deposited with defendant to secure the release of 2,077 bushels of oats plaintiff had delivered to defendant. There was a counterclaim for $810, after crediting plaintiff with the amount of the deposit, for damages from plaintiff's failure to [247 Iowa 646] deliver 10,000 bushels of seed oats he had agreed to sell defendant. From judgment for defendant for $447 on the counterclaim plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the judgment.

The facts are somewhat complicated. We recite only those deemed essential here. It is without dispute that in January, 1950, plaintiff agreed to sell defendant, a seed dealer at Perry, 10,000 bushels of blue tag, certified reselect Clinton seed oats at $1.10 per bushel, f.o.b. Hampton, Iowa, where plaintiff lived, defendant to furnish the bags. Shipment was to be made on or before February 20. Plaintiff never delivered to defendant any certified oats or any oats that were cleaned to be eligible for certification. About March 13 (1950) defendant procured from plaintiff at Hampton 2,077 bushels of oats and took them to its plant at Perry where it attempted to clean them preparatory to having them certified by the Iowa Crop Improvement Association, an adjunct of Iowa State College.

The oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant at the time defendant obtained 2,077 bushels is the principal matter in dispute. Plaintiff contends the original agreement was then orally canceled and defendant agreed to accept 10,000 bushels of oats that had not been cleaned and clean them for certification, plaintiff to allow defendant two cents per bushel for cleaning. Defendant, however, claims it undertook to clean the 2,077 bushels if it could as an accommodation to plaintiff who did not have facilities for cleaning oats but that plaintiff remained obligated to deliver the 10,000 bushels in accordance with the original agreement.

Like plaintiff, defendant was unable with its facilities to clean the 2,077 bushels because of the mustard seed in them. As above indicated, oats must be cleaned before they may be certified. On March 15 defendant notified plaintiff that because of the condition of the 2,077 bushels and the lateness of the date it had been compelled to buy 10,000 bushels of oats from other sources and if they cost more than $1.10 per bushel defendant would expect plaintiff to make up the difference. After receiving this notice plaintiff sold 10,000 bushels of oats to Berry Seed Co.

In order to perform his contract with Berry it was necessary[247 Iowa 647] for plaintiff to secure the release of the 2,077 bushels he had delivered to defendant. Defendant, however, refused to surrender the 2,077 bushels unless plaintiff would deposit with it $1,800, apparently as security for any damages plaintiff might owe defendant because of his failure to deliver the 10,000 bushels. Plaintiff complied with this requirement, obtained the 2,077 bushels back from defendant about April 12 and delivered them to Berry as part of the 10,000 bushels plaintiff sold that company. It was necessary for Berry to put the oats it procured from plaintiff, including the 2,077 bushels, through four different machines in order to clean them properly for certification.

Plaintiff later brought this law action to recover from defendant the $1,800 deposit. As stated, defendant counterclaimed for damages due it from plaintiff's failure to deliver the 10,000 bushels. After crediting

Page 255

plaintiff with the amount of his deposit the trial court allowed defendant damages of $447. Plaintiff assigns three errors for reversal.

I. Plaintiff first contends the trial court failed to make a finding upon what is said to have been the ultimate disputed issue as to which version of the second agreement above referred to, made about March 13, was correct.

Rule 179, 58 I.C.A. Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in part, 'The court trying an issue of fact without a jury * * * shall find the facts in writing * * *.' It is well settled that findings of a trial court are to be broadly and liberally construed, rather than narrowly or technically. In case of doubt or ambiguity they will be construed to uphold, rather than to defeat,...