United States v. LN WHITE AND COMPANY

Citation359 F.2d 703
Decision Date10 March 1966
Docket NumberDocket 29771.,No. 140,140
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. L. N. WHITE AND COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Dawnald R. Henderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., and Alan G. Blumberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Seymour Stone, New York City (Philip Novick, of Novick & Stone, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Before KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS, District Judge.*

TIMBERS, District Judge.

L. N. White and Company, Inc., a New York corporation engaged in the export and import business and specializing in beans, appeals from a judgment entered against it in amount of $9,481.41, including interest and costs, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after a two day trial without a jury before Edward C. McLean, District Judge, in an action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 714b(c) brought by the United States on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation for breach of those provisions of a sales contract relating to payment of charges for warehouse storage of pea beans purchased by White from the CCC on May 11, 1956. On this appeal White raises these issues: (1) whether it is liable under the contract to pay "commingled" storage charges and, if so, whether 15¢ per cwt. per month was the rate in effect at the place of delivery; (2) assuming White's liability, whether the parties agreed upon an accord and satisfaction which bars appellee's recovery; and (3) whether interest was properly awarded to appellee from the date of its demand. We hold that the district court correctly decided each of these issues in favor of appellee. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

A brief summary of the controlling facts as found by the district court is necessary to an analysis of the contract upon which turn the legal issues raised on this appeal.

CCC's Role in the Pea Bean Commodity Market

Over 80% of the world's supply of dry edible pea beans are grown in Eastern Michigan. As part of the federal farm price support program, the CCC indirectly purchases or takes over a substantial portion of the nation's pea bean crop in the following manner.1 After the farmer grows the beans, harvests them and in the fall of the year stores them in a warehouse, he receives a negotiable warehouse receipt which he takes to the CCC and pledges as security for a loan. When the loan falls due, the farmer defaults. The CCC then takes over the warehouse receipt and the beans it represents in satisfaction of the loan, but continues to store the beans in the warehouse where the farmer originally stored them. The CCC does not sell the beans in the United States, for this would depress the market and defeat the price support program. In order to minimize its losses, however, the CCC sells the beans to exporters on the condition that they not be resold in the United States. The terms and conditions of such offers to sell are announced through bulletins issued by the CCC in advance. All contracts are expressly made subject to the provisions of such bulletins. One provision incorporated in all contracts of sale is that warehouse charges accrued after a certain date will be for the account of the buyer; specifically, if the buyer does not take delivery of his entire purchase within the month of sale, he must pay the additional storage charges thus incurred. The bulletins refer to this cost allocated to the buyer as "warehouse charges."

"Identity Preserved Storage" and "Commingled Storage"

There are two types of storage of edible pea beans which are well recognized among those who deal in this commodity: "identity preserved" (IP) and "commingled." IP storage means that the identical beans placed in storage by the farmer are kept segregated from those of other farmers and, upon presentation of the warehouse receipt, the farmer gets back the same beans that he put in; any change or deterioration in weight or grade2 of the beans, under IP storage, is the responsibility of the farmer, not the warehouseman. Commingled storage, on the other hand, means that a farmer's beans are mingled with those of other farmers and, upon presentation of the warehouse receipt specifying the net weight and grade of the beans originally placed in storage, the farmer is entitled to get back the equivalent weight and grade of beans; any change or deterioration in weight or grade, under commingled storage, is the responsibility of the warehouseman who must incur whatever expense is required to treat the beans in order to restore them to the weight and grade specified; in effect, under commingled storage, the warehouseman guarantees the return of the same quantity and quality of beans as were placed in storage. Understandably, the rates for commingled storage are substantially greater than for IP storage. And, since pea beans in storage are affected adversely by warm weather, the rates for commingled storage increase as the season progresses, for example, from early spring, to late spring, to early summer, to late summer, thus reflecting the increased risk of deterioration and the increased cost of treating deteriorated beans so as to restore their weight and grade.3

During 1956, over 80% of the pea beans stored by farmers in Michigan warehouses were stored on a commingled basis.

When the CCC takes over the warehouse receipt upon the farmer's default in payment of his loan, the CCC steps into the farmer's shoes; it has the same rights and is under the same duties as the farmer. Most Michigan warehousemen are willing to continue storing on a commingled basis for the account of the CCC; and since most beans originally are stored by the farmer on a commingled basis, it is the practice of the CCC to leave them on that basis when it takes over the warehouse receipt unless the warehouseman declines to agree to it. The CCC, upon taking over the beans when the farmer defaults, enters into a written "Bean Storage Agreement" with the warehouseman setting forth the terms upon which the beans henceforth will be held for the account of the CCC. This contract, on printed Form 28, first prepared in 1951, is the standard one entered into between the CCC and all warehouses.

The storage contracts between the CCC and the four Michigan warehouses here involved were on this standard form, each containing the following provision:

"Beans stored in sacks shall be deemed to be stored commingled with other beans, and the responsibility of the warehouseman with respect thereto shall be as if stored commingled unless the warehouse receipt or accompanying certificates is plainly marked in a manner satisfactory to Commodity that such beans are stored identity preserved. * * *"

The names of the four warehouses which stored the beans involved in the instant case, the dates of their basic storage contracts with the CCC and the dates of the schedules of storage rates effective in 1956 attached to the respective contracts, are set forth in the margin.4 The monthly rates per cwt. for commingled storage specified in the Runciman, Harper and Cooperative contracts for the months of March through August of 19565 under the heading "Storage" were as follows:

                  March ......................  6¢
                  April ......................  7¢
                  May ........................ 11¢
                  June ....................... 15¢
                  July ....................... 15¢
                  August ..................... 15¢
                

The Runciman contract also specified a rate of 4¢ per cwt. per month for identity preserved storage; but the Harper and Cooperative contracts made no provision for such storage. The Frutchey contract deleted all provisions for commingled storage; it specified 4¢ per cwt. per month for identity preserved storage. Frutchey was one of the few Michigan warehousemen who declined to store for the CCC on a commingled basis. It will be noted that the commingled storage rate increased as the season progressed, the maximum 15¢ rate being applicable during the summer months; and the identity preserved rate remained constant at 4¢ throughout the period.

Contract Here in Litigation

It is against this background of the customs and usages of the pea bean trade — particularly those relating to warehouse storage and the rates of storage — that White entered into a contract with the CCC on May 11, 1956 to purchase 100,000 cwt. of "US No. 1 Dry Edible Pea Beans" at a price of $4.81 per cwt., shipment to be as soon as possible after receipt of payment. The contract consisted of a confirmation of sale signed by both parties which was expressly made subject to the terms and conditions of certain bulletins or announcements of the CCC, the relevant warehouse storage provisions of which are set forth in the margin.6

The confirmation of sale contained the following provision with respect to allocation of storage charges:

"Storage stops for the account of CCC on date indicated May 31, 1956. * * * Any subsequent storage will be for the account of the buyer at rates in effect at place of delivery."

Place of delivery was specified in the confirmation of sale as follows:

"Upon receipt of payment, delivery will be made FOB cars or trucks at the interior warehouse. * * *"

The upshot of these provisions in the bulletins and the confirmation of sale with respect to warehouse storage charges is that the parties to the instant contract agreed that such charges would be assumed by the CCC prior to May 31, 1956 but would be the obligation of White thereafter at rates in effect at the four warehouse interiors where delivery was to be made.

On May 31, 1956, White had not yet given shipping instructions or paid for 79,720.73 cwt. of the 100,000 cwt. covered by the contract. It took delivery of this balance from time to time during the three month period after May 31. The beans were delivered to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Wille, In re
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1968
    ...U.S.) 289, 298--299, 3 L.Ed. 104). And in such action, Federal law, rather than State law, would apply (United States v. L. N. White and Company, 359 F.2d 703, 714, note 16 (2d Cir.), and cases cited therein; Cargill, Incorporated v. Commodity Credit Corporation, 275 F.2d 745, 751 (2d Accor......
  • In re Amsterdam Ave. Development Associates, Bankruptcy No. 88B-11786 (HCB).
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 5, 1989
    ...interest in property. That issue is a federal question decided by defining the scope of federal law. Cf. United States v. L.N. White & Co., Inc., 359 F.2d 703, 714 n. 16 (2nd Cir.1966) (citing Priebe & Sons v. United States, 332 U.S. 407, 68 S.Ct. 123, 92 L.Ed. 32 (1947)). Furthermore, in d......
  • In re 995 Fifth Ave. Associates, LP
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 13, 1990
    ...federal question to be resolved by defining the scope of federal law. See Amsterdam, 103 B.R. at 458 (citing United States v. L.N. White & Co., 359 F.2d 703, 714 n. 16 (2d Cir.1966)). Moreover, where a state tax has an impact upon a federal right, federal courts are not only free to, but mu......
  • U.S. v. State of W.Va.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 21, 1985
    ...Governor wrote the Secretary of the Army on June 9, 1972 commending the work done by the Corps of Engineers.2 United States v. L.N. White and Co., 359 F.2d 703, 714 (2nd Cir.1966).3 For a definition of a "liquidated" claim, see Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Lynn, 503 F.2d 636, 646 (6th Cir.1......
  • 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