Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Company, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1711.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
Citation378 F. Supp. 34
Decision Date13 December 1973
PartiesT. H. TAUNTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLENBERG COTTON COMPANY, INC., Defendant. GARDEN VALLEY PACKING CO., INC., d/b/a Garden Valley Gin Co., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. ALLENBERG COTTON COMPANY, INC., Third Party Defendant.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1711.

378 F. Supp. 34

T. H. TAUNTON et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLENBERG COTTON COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

GARDEN VALLEY PACKING CO., INC., d/b/a Garden Valley Gin Co., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff,
v.
ALLENBERG COTTON COMPANY, INC., Third Party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 1711.

United States District Court, M. D. Georgia, Columbus Division.

December 13, 1973.


378 F. Supp. 35

Denmark Groover, Jr., Byrd, Groover & Buford, Macon, Ga., for plaintiffs.

Charles J. Willis, Lovejoy, Mayer, Allen & Quillian, LaGrange, Ga., and Albert W. Stubbs, Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, Columbus, Ga., for defendant, Allenberg Cotton Co., Inc.

Dan S. Beeland, Columbus, Ga., for defendant, Garden Valley Packing Co., Inc., d/b/a Garden Valley Gin Co.

378 F. Supp. 36

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

ELLIOTT, Chief Judge.

The thirteen Plaintiffs above identified are cotton farmers who early this year entered into contracts to sell their fall crops at a specified price per pound and are now in the understandably unhappy situation of having seen the market price of the commodity advance substantially during the growing season. In this action they challenge the validity of their agreements. That which appeared attractive in sunny spring has lost its allure in bleak December.

The case came on for trial on the merits before the Court without a jury. All parties were present and represented by counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Garden Valley Packing Co., Inc. (hereinafter "Garden Valley"), a gin and warehouse operator, and Allenberg Cotton Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Allenberg"), a cotton broker, in the Superior Court of Taylor County, Georgia, alleging certain written contracts between themselves and Garden Valley and between Garden Valley and Allenberg. They prayed for a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties under these contracts and that the contracts be declared invalid and unenforceable. The case was removed to this Court on the petition of Allenberg based on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $10,000.00. Allenberg filed defenses to the complaint and also filed a counterclaim seeking in several counts damages for breach of contract, injunction, specific performance, a declaratory judgment and recovery of the cotton in question. It also filed a cross-claim against the co-defendant, Garden Valley, seeking the same relief. The Plaintiffs answered the counterclaim asserted against them. The defendant Garden Valley answered the complaint and the cross-claim against it and filed a third party complaint against Allenberg. Allenberg filed an answer to the third party complaint.

During the course of the trial certain stipulations and concessions were made by the parties. All of the parties stipulated that the only questions before the Court were:

1. Did the contracts in question violate the provisions of Georgia Code § 20-602, the so-called "Bucket Shop" Act?
2. Are the contracts invalid and unenforceable because Allenberg had not accepted the contracts in LaGrange, Georgia, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 9 of the contracts?
3. Are the contracts invalid and unenforceable because, at the time of the execution thereof, no cotton had actually been planted by any Plaintiff?
4. Are the contracts invalid and unenforceable because they were without consideration and lacking in mutuality?

The parties further stipulated that:

5. The only consideration for the contracts, if any, is as appears in the contracts themselves.
6. Each of the contracts was executed by the persons whose names appear thereon.
7. No cotton had been planted by any Plaintiff at the time the contracts were executed.
8. If the Court holds that the contracts are valid and enforceable, the Plaintiffs agreed that they would deliver the cotton called for by their agreements to Garden Valley and Garden Valley agreed that, in turn, it would deliver to Allenberg all cotton it received from the Plaintiffs, without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
9. Subject to the approval of the Court, the issue of damages will be severed and, if necessary, tried at a later date, provided that the rights of the parties will not be prejudiced by delivery or acceptance of the cotton in the meantime pursuant to the judgment of the Court.
378 F. Supp. 37

In view of the foregoing stipulations the Court is not presently concerned with the issue of damages, nor are we concerned with any of the remedies claimed in the pleadings other than declaratory judgment. In this connection it should be observed that in view of the rulings herein made the third party complaint of Garden Valley against Allenberg, claiming protection in the event of invalidity of the contracts, becomes moot.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following facts are established by the pleadings, that is, the allegations of the complaint and the admissions of the Defendants with respect thereto:

1. Garden Valley is a Georgia corporation with its principal office in Taylor County, Georgia....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 11, 1977
    ...Tractor Co. (1970) 205 Kan. 684, 473 P.2d 18, 23-24), the time or place for performance (Taunton v. Allenberg Company, Inc. (M.D.Ga.1973) 378 F.Supp. 34, 39), or the quantity of the goods sold (City of Louisville v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co. (6th Cir. 1973) 482 F.2d 159, 164) all terms whi......
  • Riegel Fiber Corp. v. Anderson Gin Co., Nos. 74-2120
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 9, 1975
    ...Inc. v. York, M.D.Ga.1973, 379 F.Supp. 1075, 1079, aff'd, 5th Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 41; Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., Inc., M.D.Ga.1973, 378 F.Supp. 34, 39; Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co., Inc. v. Lawson, M.D.Ga.1973, 377 F.Supp. 661, 663. Consequently, the district judge erred in granting ap......
  • Bradford v. Plains Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, Nos. 75-1217
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 11, 1976
    ...Anderson Gin Co., 5 Cir., 512 F.2d 784; Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. Killebrew, 5 Cir., 505 F.2d 643; Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., M.D.Ga., 378 F.Supp. 34; Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co., Inc. v. Waldrep, N.D.Ala., 377 F.Supp. 1215; Cone Mills Corp. v. Hurdle, N.D.Miss., 369 F.Supp. 426; Kimsey ......
  • Brown v. Reeves, No. 63943
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 22, 1982
    ...one as to the other. Code Ann. § 20-304. Accord, Hardin v. Case, 134 Ga. 813(2), 68 S.E. 648 (1910); Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., 378 F.Supp. 34(6) 2. Appellant also contends that the parties did not intend the agreement to be more than an offer by appellees to sell, which offer appella......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 11, 1977
    ...Tractor Co. (1970) 205 Kan. 684, 473 P.2d 18, 23-24), the time or place for performance (Taunton v. Allenberg Company, Inc. (M.D.Ga.1973) 378 F.Supp. 34, 39), or the quantity of the goods sold (City of Louisville v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co. (6th Cir. 1973) 482 F.2d 159, 164) all terms whi......
  • Riegel Fiber Corp. v. Anderson Gin Co., Nos. 74-2120
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 9, 1975
    ...Inc. v. York, M.D.Ga.1973, 379 F.Supp. 1075, 1079, aff'd, 5th Cir. 1974, 494 F.2d 41; Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., Inc., M.D.Ga.1973, 378 F.Supp. 34, 39; Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co., Inc. v. Lawson, M.D.Ga.1973, 377 F.Supp. 661, 663. Consequently, the district judge erred in granting ap......
  • Bradford v. Plains Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, Nos. 75-1217
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 11, 1976
    ...Anderson Gin Co., 5 Cir., 512 F.2d 784; Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. Killebrew, 5 Cir., 505 F.2d 643; Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., M.D.Ga., 378 F.Supp. 34; Mitchell-Huntley Cotton Co., Inc. v. Waldrep, N.D.Ala., 377 F.Supp. 1215; Cone Mills Corp. v. Hurdle, N.D.Miss., 369 F.Supp. 426; Kimsey ......
  • Brown v. Reeves, No. 63943
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 22, 1982
    ...one as to the other. Code Ann. § 20-304. Accord, Hardin v. Case, 134 Ga. 813(2), 68 S.E. 648 (1910); Taunton v. Allenberg Cotton Co., 378 F.Supp. 34(6) 2. Appellant also contends that the parties did not intend the agreement to be more than an offer by appellees to sell, which offer appella......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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