W. B. Hurst
Decision Date | 07 April 1906 |
Docket Number | 14,552 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | W. B. HURST, Doing Business as W. B. Hurst & Co., v. THE ALTAMONT MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
Decided January, 1906.
Error from Bourbon district court; WALTER L. SIMONS, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CONTRACT--Sale--Delivery --Duty to Furnish Cars. When a seller of merchandise agrees to sell twenty car-loads thereof, to be delivered to the buyer at the seller's place of business, it is not the duty of the buyer to furnish the cars to receive the goods; and, in an action by the buyer against the seller to recover damages for non-delivery of the merchandise under such a contract, the petition need not allege that the plaintiff furnished cars ready to receive the goods.
2. WORDS AND PHRASES-- Defined. The phrase when used in a contract between a buyer and seller of commercial commodities, where the use of a common carrier is necessary, means that the seller will secure the cars, load them, and do whatever may be required to accomplish the consignment and shipment of the goods to the buyer, free of expense to him.
John H. Crain, and John V. McKinney, for plaintiff in error.
Keene & Gates, for defendant in error.
OPINION
A demurrer was sustained to the plaintiff's petition by the district court. The plaintiff excepted, and brings that question here for review. The demurrer contained two grounds: (1) That several causes of action were improperly joined; (2) that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained generally. The record does not show whether the court considered the petition insufficient for both reasons or not. The case has been argued as though the second ground of the demurrer was the only one involved, and we shall so assume.
The petition is of considerable length, and the points discussed by counsel can be sufficiently stated without giving a full copy of the pleading. After the proper formal and introductory averments the petition states, in substance, that the defendant offered to sell to the plaintiff certain goods, at a stated price, as shown by "Exhibit A"; that the plaintiff accepted the offer, as shown by "Exhibit B"; that the plaintiff afterward made an additional order, as shown by "Exhibit C"; that later the plaintiff, by letter, confirmed and renewed previous orders, which were accepted by the president of the defendant company, as shown by "Exhibit D"; that in pursuance thereof shipping orders were sent to, and received by, the defendant, as shown by "Exhibit E"; that defendant received all shipping orders sent by the plaintiff as aforesaid, but "neglected and refused to deliver said egg-cases as it agreed to do, and as ordered by this plaintiff"; that at the time the first shipment should have been made, and ever since, such egg-cases have been worth from one and a quarter to two cents more than the contract price; and that the plaintiff has been damaged $ 1000. Then follows a prayer for judgment. The exhibits are as follow:
The supposed weakness of this petition, as we understand from the discussion of counsel, lies in its want of an allegation that the plaintiff furnished the necessary cars at the time when shipment was desired. On the other hand, it is contended that it was the duty of the defendant to obtain the cars from the carrier, load the goods therein, and consign them to the plaintiff. The real point in the controversy, therefore, seems to be this: Whose duty was it under the contract between these parties to cause the carrier to place cars in position to receive the goods to be shipped?
The exhibits attached to the petition constitute the contract. If concisely stated, it would be substantially as follows: Ship to us immediately, or as promptly as possible, twenty cars of egg-cases, distributed as hereinafter stated. We will pay therefor nine cents a case, f. o. b. cars at Cairo, Ill., payment to be made when cars arrive at the point of destination. This order was accepted.
In construing this contract the difficulty centers in determining what the parties intended by the clause It is conceded that the letters are for brevity used instead of the words "free on board." The clause when expressed in words, therefore, stands thus: Free on board the cars at Cairo, Ill. This language has been used in the transaction of commercial business many years, and has by general custom and usage among buyers, sellers and shippers acquired a definite and specific meaning, which is well understood and of common knowledge, and of which courts will take judicial notice. The significance of this language, when standing alone, is so well established that it has been generally held that proof in support of such signification is unnecessary and improper. (Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Hull Coal & Coke Co. 101 Ala. 446, 14 So. 672; Capehart et al. v. Furman...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. J. Menz Lumber Co. v. E. J. McNeeley & Co.
...that the term implies that the buyer shall procure the cars, are discussed, distinguished, and disapproved in the case of Hurst v. Altamont Mfg. Co., supra. It must, however, be conceded that there is a conflict authority on this question, but we think, not only that the rule we have stated......
-
Custom Built Homes Co. v. Kansas State Commission of Revenue and Taxation
...page 119, 254 P.2d at page 296. See, also, Wing v. Mid-Continent Seeds, 170 Kan. 242, 225 P.2d 78; and Hurst v. Altamont Manufacturing Co., 73 Kan. 422, 85 P. 551, 6 L.R.A., N.S., 928, for other Kansas cases dealing with F.O.B. The case of Wing v. Mid-Continent Seeds, supra [170 Kan. 242, 2......
-
Hatcher v. Ferguson
... ... 681, 123 Am. St. 219, 12 Ann. Cas. 311, and note, 89 S.W ... 1126, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 248.) ... By ... virtue of the term "f. o. b. cars at Ketchum," ... defendant was obligated to load the lambs on board cars ... subject to such billing as plaintiffs might direct ( Hurst ... v. Altamont Mfg. Co., 73 Kan. 422, 117 Am. St. 525, 9 ... Ann. Cas. 549, 85 P. 551, 6 L. R. A., N. S., 928; Vogt v ... Schienebeck, 122 Wis. 491, 106 Am. St. 989, 2 Ann. Cas ... 814, 100 N.W. 820, 67 L. R. A. 756; Hunter Bros. Milling ... Co. v. Kramer Bros., 71 Kan. 468, 80 P. 963; ... ...
-
Planters Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. Columbia Cotton Oil Co.
... ... and that as soon as so placed, the title is to pass ... absolutely to the buyer, and it is to pay the freight ... Phoenix Packing Co. v. Humphrey-Ball Co., ... 58 Wash. 396, 108 P. 952; Vogt v ... Schienebeck, 122 Wis. 491, 2 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 814, ... 100 N.W. 820; Hurst v. Altamont Mfg. Co., ... 73 Kan. 422, 9 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 549, 85 P. 551; R. J ... Menz Lbr. Co. v. E. J. McNeeley & Co., 58 Wash ... 223, 108 P. 621, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1007 ... If it ... be considered that the printed portion of the contract ... providing in ... ...