Wagner v. Minnie Harvester Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1910 |
| Citation | 106 P. 969,25 Okla. 558,1910 OK 37 |
| Parties | WAGNER v. MINNIE HARVESTER CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Chapter 83 (sections 6739-6743) Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, an enactment of the territorial Legislature, passed December 25 1890, entitled, "An Act to Prevent Combinations in Restraint of Trade," is neither in conflict nor inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States, nor with an act on the same subject applicable to territories enforceable by the federal authorities, passed by Congress July 2, 1890 (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200]), and was a valid statute of said territory. Following the case of Territory v. Long Bell Lumber Co. et al. (decided by this court December 21, 1908) 99 P. 911.
(a) The fact that a prosecution for a violation of such territorial statute would also be a violation of the federal act does not necessarily render it invalid.
A contract of purchase of material, provisions, feed, articles of merchandise, or any commodity, made in the territory of Oklahoma by any individual, partnership, or corporation transacting business in violation of sections 6739 and 6740 Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, such purchaser is not liable for the purchase price thereof, and may plead as a complete defense that such contract was made in violation of said acts.
A contract of purchase of any article or commodity from any individual, company, or corporation, made in the state of Missouri contrary to the provisions of sections 8965 and 8966, Rev. St. Mo. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 4150, 4152) defining pools, trusts, monopolies, etc., is subject to be defeated when sought to be enforced in the courts of that state by virtue of the provisions of section 8970 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p 4153), wherein it provided that such purchasers shall not be liable for the price or payment thereof, but may plead the violation of said articles as a defense to any suit therefor.
(a) When an action is brought to recover the contract or purchase price for such articles or commodities in the courts of this state under the laws of comity between different states, the provisions of said section 8970, supra, not being contrary to the public policy of this state, such defense may be pleaded as a bar to recover here to the same effect as in the state of Missouri.
When the question arises as to what laws are in force in another state or territory, and the same are neither pleaded nor proved, it will be presumed that such laws are the same as those of the forum.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
A contract is governed by the laws of the state where made, both as to the contract itself and to substantial defenses provided by statute.
Error from District Court, Kingfisher County; C. F. Irwin, Judge.
Action by the Minnie Harvester Company against C. L. Wagner. A demurrer to the answer was sustained, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Wilson's Rev. & Ann.St. 1903, §§ 6739-6743, passed by the territorial Legislature to prevent combinations in restraint of trade, is not inconsistent with Act Cong. July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, U.S. Comp.St.1901, p. 3200, on the same subject, applicable to territories, and is not invalid because of the exercise by Congress of the power to prevent such combinations.
On the 8th day of February, 1905, the defendant in error, as plaintiff, commenced this action against the plaintiff in error as defendant, in the district court of Kingfisher county, territory of Oklahoma, declaring on a certain promissory note, as follows: The defendant answered as follows:
1. General denial.
2. That in the spring of 1903 he ordered a car load of Minnie Harvesters from the plaintiff, which were to be delivered on board the cars at Kansas City, Mo., said order being given to the plaintiff by defendant in ample time for the harvest of 1903. That instead of delivering same on board the cars at Kansas City, Mo., they were shipped from St. Paul, Minn., the car being delayed two or three weeks on the route, being caught at Omaha, Nob., in what is known as the Kansas City flood. That when said car arrived at Kingfisher, the harvest of 1903 was in progress. That defendant had orders from the farmers for all the harvesters ordered from the plaintiff but the delay caused by the delay of plaintiff caused him to lose the sale of four harvesters and one mowing machine of the value of $400. That when defendant received said car, he supposed that the machines had been loaded at Kansas City, as per contract, and that the delay was occasioned by the flood for which the plaintiff was not responsible, but that after receiving said car he discovered that the delay was caused by the fault and negligence of plaintiff. That defendant repeatedly wired the company relative to said binders, which replied that the waters were so high in Kansas City that they could not even read the numbers of the car, and defendant, believing the representations of plaintiff to the effect that the delay was caused by agencies without its control, received all of said machines, but that had he known the facts which were concealed and withheld from him without any fault or negligence on his part he would not have received said car. That, in receiving same, it was the result of the deceit and fault of plaintiff, and by and through said false statements and representations. That on account of said fraud defendant refused to pay for the binders remaining unsold to the farmers. That on or about the 23d day of September, 1903, such binders were destroyed by fire, being of the value of $400. That on or about the date of the execution of said note, the plaintiff made the following false and fraudulent representations to defendant, to wit, that the said Minnie Harvester Company had the machines which they sold insured, and that the machines destroyed by the fire on September 23d were insured, and that if this defendant would make settlement for these machines and sign the said note set out in plaintiff's petition he would be reimbursed the amount of the insurance on said machines, which said amount would be almost the face of the note. That said representations were false and fraudulent and untrue, and were made by the plaintiff for the purpose of inducing this defendant to sign said note, and defendant was thereby induced to sign said note by reason of said false and fraudulent representations, and that otherwise he would not have signed same. That on the day said note was signed, and prior thereto, the plaintiff represented and stated to the defendant that the Minnie Harvester Company was an independent concern manufacturing and selling harvesters, binders, mowing machines, and other farming implements on its own account, and that it was in no way connected with the International Harvester Company, and that it controlled its own output, and that it was not in any way connected with any trust, pool, or combination with the International Harvester Company or other corporations for the purpose of regulating and fixing the prices of binders, mowing machines, and other farming implements, or to restrict competition and control prices of binders, mowing machines, and other farming implements, and that it had no agreement or understanding with the said International Harvester Company and other corporations for such purposes, and that it intended to remain in business and compete with said pooled corporations, and that upon the execution and delivery of said note this answering defendant should handle and sell the binders and mowing machines of said plaintiff for the year 1904 in and for the vicinity of Kingfisher. That during the year 1903 the defendant had handled the machinery of said plaintiff, to wit, its binders and mowing machines, in and around Kingfisher, and in pushing the sale of said machinery, and in establishing a trade for said machinery, expended large amounts of money and labor, and this defendant, wishing to realize on the money, labor, and effort heretofore expended in establishing a trade for said binders and moving machines, desired to continue to sell said binders and mowing machines during the year 1904, which fact was well known to the plaintiff, the said plaintiff well knowing the wishes of this defendant to continue the sale of the Minnie Harvester Company's machinery for the year 1904, and subsequent years, made the representations hereinbefore set forth to this defendant that they were an independent concern and not in any pool or combination, and that they controlled their own output, and that they intended to continue in business, and that they intended to put their machinery on the market for the year 1904, and subsequent years, and that they intended to continue manufacturing the twine, known as the "Grass Twine," fitted for their machinery. That the representations and statements aforesaid made by said plaintiff to the defendant were false, fraudulent, and untrue, and that they were believed by defendant, and that defendant acted on such belief and signed said note. Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Minnie Harvester Company on the very date said note was signed and for months prior thereto had abandoned all independent effort to sell its machinery and had entered into a trust, pool, and combination with the International Harvester Company, and were absolutely controlled by the pooled...
To continue reading
Request your trial