Thurman v. Farmers Co-op., Inc., 5-1213

• Decision Date: 11 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 5-1213,5-1213
• Parties: Ellis THURMAN, Appellant, v. FARMERS COOPERATIVE, Inc., Appellee. ARKANSAS FARMERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Ellis THURMAN, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 650

299 S.W.2d 650

227 Ark. 488

Ellis THURMAN, Appellant, v. FARMERS COOPERATIVE, Inc., Appellee.

ARKANSAS FARMERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Ellis THURMAN, Appellee.

No. 5-1213.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 11, 1957.

W. B. Putman and James R. Hale, Fayetteville, for Ellis thurman.

Rex W. Perkins and David J. Burleson, Fayetteville, for Farmers' Cooperative, Inc.

John R. Thompson, Little Rock, for Arkansas Farmers' Ass'n.

HOLT, Justice.

August 1, 1955, Farmers Cooperative, Inc. (appellee) sued Ellis Thurman to recover $2061.75 alleged due for 'goods, wares and merchandise' as set out in a 'verified, itemized account,' made a part of its complaint as 'Exhibit A', that said itemized account set out the dates and amounts of the purchases and, all credits, and the balance due. Thurman answered denying the accuracy of the account, and denied owing appellee (plaintiff) in any amount. He also filed a cross complaint against appellee (Farmers Cooperative, Inc.), and against Arkansas Farmers Association, in which he alleged that: '* * * On or about January 19, 1954, the cross-defendants, Farmers Cooperative, Inc. and Arkansas Farmers Association sold and delivered to the cross-complainant 1,000 pullets for a laying flock, and that said cross-defendants * * * represented and guaranteed to the cross-complainant that the said 1,000 pullets were good, healthy chickens, properly inspected, disease free, and otherwise fit for the purpose for which they were intended, * * * In truth and in fact, said 1,000 pullets sold by the cross-defendants to the cross-complainant were of an inferior quality, sick and diseased and totally unfit and unsatisfactory for the purpose for which they were intended, * * *' that as a result of such diseased condition of said chickens he had been damaged in the amount of $3,750 and asked for judgment against Farmers Cooperative, Inc., and Arkansas Farmers Association for this amount. On the issues raised in the complaint and cross-complaint, trial was had July 10, 1956 and at the close of all the testimony the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of cross-defendant, Farmers Cooperative, Inc. on the cross-complaint of Ellis Thurman. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Thurman against Arkansas Farmers Association for $2061.75 and for appellee (Farmers Cooperative, Inc.) against Thurman in the amount of $2061.75, and from this $2061.75 judgment Thurman has appealed, and Arkansas Farmers Association appeals from the judgment of Thurman against it, for $2061.75.

We first consider the judgment of Farmers Cooperative, Inc. against Thurman on the account for $2061.75. For reversal Thurman relies on two points: 'I. The plaintiff, Farmers Cooperative, Inc., did not prove an open account against Ellis Thurman. II. The plaintiff, Farmers Cooperative, Inc., did not prove that it was the real party in interest in the suit against Ellis Thurman on open account, or that it had any right to bring suit against him for the collection of said alleged account.'

As to point I, Thurman contends that the account, Exhibit A, was not proved and that it was not sufficiently itemized to furnish him information as to the various items that he purchased, and that were charged to him. We hold that the evidence was ample to show that he purchased the goods from Farmers...