Taylor v. Successful Farming Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1923
• Docket Number: No. 35469.,35469.
• Citation: 197 Iowa 618,196 N.W. 77
• Parties: TAYLOR v. SUCCESSFUL FARMING PUB. CO. ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

197 Iowa 618

196 N.W. 77

TAYLOR

v.SUCCESSFUL FARMING PUB. CO. ET AL.

No. 35469.^a1

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 11, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Joseph E. Meyer, Judge.

Action to recover the purchase price of certain hogs claimed to have been sold by plaintiff and his assignors to the defendants. The court directed a verdict in behalf of the defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.A. D. Pugh, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Lehmann, Seevers & Hurlburt, of Des Moines, for appellees.

FAVILLE, J.

This action is brought upon seven counts. Two of these are for hogs claimed to have been sold by appellant, or the firm of which he was a member, to the appellees. The remaining counts are for hogs claimed to have been sold by various individuals to appellees, which claims have been duly assigned to appellant.

The appellee Successful Farming PublishingCompany is a corporation which is engaged in the twofold business of publishing a farm journal known as “Successful Farming” and in operating a certain stock farm near the city of Des Moines. Upon this farm are kept pure-blooded cattle and also pure-blooded hogs. Because of this the farm is referred to as the “Meredith Jersey Farm” and also as the “Meredith Hog Farm.” The appellee E. T. Meredith is the sole owner of the stock of the said corporation, and the publication of the said paper and the operation of said farm are conducted under his general management. One Townsend was employed by Meredith in the active management of said farm and had employed as his assistant one Courtney.

It is the contention of appellant that all of the hogs involved in the seven sales in controversy in this action were sold to appellees and that appellees became and are liable to pay the purchase price therefor. It is the contention of appellees, however, that none of said hogs were purchased by them, but that the said hogs were purchased by Townsend in his individual capacity, and that he, and not appellees, is liable for the purchase price thereof. This presented a fact question upon which the court directed a verdict in behalf of appellees.

It is impossible within the reasonable length of an opinion to set out in detail all of the testimony offered by appellant to sustain his contention in regard to the various sales that were made. A brief résumé will suffice.

Townsend, the manager of the farm, was a witness in behalf of appellant. It appears that Townsend became ambitious to engage in the pure-bred hog business on his own responsibility. He had at various times bought hogs for appellees, which hogs had been paid for by appellees and placed upon the farm. Townsend entered into negotiations with the firm of Taylor & Taylor, of which appellant is a member, in regard to the purchase of a certain boar, at the price of $3,000. Regarding this transaction Townsend testified as follows:

“I did not feel justified in buying for the Meredith Stock Farm or Mr. Meredith because of the price. I questioned whether Mr. Meredith would see that value in the boar, and I did not believe he would ratify the purchase at that price, and so stated to Mr. Taylor. * * *

The boar was to be shipped to the farm, and if I wasn't satisfied with him, having bought him without seeing him, I was entitled to ship him on to Taylor's at What Cheer. * * * At that time I think Mr. Meredith was in Washington; he was away from home. Some time after that I talked with Mr. Meredith about this hog; I can't give the date, that same fall about November 1st, or later. It was some few weeks after I purchased the boar, and he had been delivered to the farm. I got on the train with Mr. Meredith and rode up to Kelly in order to talk to him. I explained to Mr. Meredith I had arranged to purchase this boar, and I had made the arrangement solely on my own responsibility, waiting an opportunity to talk the matter over with him, and see whether he wanted to go in and buy an interest in the boar and the other sows I had bought, or whether he would permit or was agreeable at that time to a straight partnership arrangement. I told Mr. Meredith I was in a position to move the hogs off his place if he didn't want them there, or didn't want me to have them there, and Mr. Meredith told me he was not agreeable to a partnership arrangement on the basis of an investment of an equal amount of capital, but he said: ‘Townsend, I am not going to object to your bringing hogs on the place, any hogs you may want to buy, and keep them there with an equal division of the expenses, and when they are sold if your hogs make a profit you will be entitled to the profit, and if they make a loss you will have to stand the loss, and the same way with hogs I already owned and were on the place; in other words, you put hogs on the place and run them with mine, but we will keep them separate.’ There was no arrangement about sharing the losses. We were to prorate the expenses according to the number of hogs each of us had. * * *

“I told Mr. Taylor I was buying it, and was short of money and wanted time until I sold it to pay for it. I did not say anything about buying it for Mr. Meredith or for Successful Farming. I told Mr. Taylor I wanted to go into the pure-bred stock business previous to and ever since, I took charge of Mr. Meredith's farm, and that I was going in with the purchase of this animal. I agreed to pay $1,500 cash, and subsequently paid $1,000 within a couple of weeks by my personal check, Exhibit 1, payable to Mr. Taylor. The amount is $1,000 dated December 9, 1920. That was given in payment of the purchase of hogs. In the purchase of Carmine Arch Back First, the boar. That was part payment for the boar. That was on my personal account in which Mr. Meredith had no interest. * * *

I can't remember Mr. Meredith's words, but I know I inferred from his conversation that for the time at least there should be a strict account kept on the individual hogs in the yard. The hogs were to be kept separate. * * *

Q. Did Mr. Meredith or the publishing company ever have any interest in any of the hogs involved in this suit? A. No.”

Shortly after the purchase of the boar, Townsend bought other hogs of appellant's firm for which he gave notes signed by himself personally. All of Townsend's notes were later renewed and included in a single note signed by him personally, and no claim was made at any time by appellant that the notes should be signed by appellees. Afterward Townsend bought other hogs from the different parties whose claims were assigned to appellant. For one lot of these hogs Townsend gave his personal note and subsequently made a partial payment thereon and gave a renewal note for the balance. In one or two instances Courtney signed notes with Townsend for the purchase of the hogs. None of these notes were signed by appellees, nor was any claim made by appellant and his assignors that they should be so signed. The certificates of registration that were furnished showed that the hogs were transferred to Townsend. After the hogs were taken to the Meredith farm, it was possible to distinguish the Townsend hogs from those belonging to appellees. The mature hogs bore a steel label in the ear bearing the initials and a number for...