Ward Commission Co. v. Sioux Falls National Bank
| Decision Date | 17 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 36347 |
| Parties | WARD COMMISSION COMPANY, Appellant, v. SIOUX FALLS NATIONAL BANK, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--A. O. WAKEFIELD, Judge.
ACTION to recover amount of the proceeds of sale of seven carloads of hogs sold by plaintiff to the Hopkins-Harrington Company which proceeds were deposited in defendant bank. Case was tried to the court without a jury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, on motion of defendant, the petition was dismissed by the court on its merits. Facts appear in the opinion. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Shull Stilwill, Shull & Wadden, for appellant.
Danforth & Barron and C. R. Jones, for appellee.
I.
There was no issue of fact presented to the trial court for determination, as the only evidence was produced by plaintiff, appellant here. Questions of law only were involved, and only questions of law are involved on this appeal.
Appellant was a corporation engaged in the live-stock business at Sioux City, Iowa, and maintained a branch office at the stockyards at Sioux Falls, South Dakota. This branch office was in charge of a salesman, a yard man, and a bookkeeper. The Hopkins-Harrington Company was a corporation engaged in business at Sioux Falls. Its business was buying and selling hogs and cattle. It did not deal as a commission merchant. It did not receive commissions in its dealings. Its business was what is called in the record, "order buying." Its method of doing business was that it received orders from packing houses to furnish a certain number of hogs, about a specified weight, and at an approximate price. Upon receipt of such an order, the company would make purchases direct from owners of hogs, to fill such orders. Its method in such transactions was to have the hogs so purchased marketed as sold to one Harmison. The hogs were watered and fed, and then weighed from Harmison to the packing house whose order was being filled. Orders came and were filled from different packing houses. Those involved in this case were from Armour & Company. The profits of Hopkins-Harrington Company came from the gain in weight of the hogs by feed and water while the hogs were in its possession at Sioux Falls, before consigning them to Armour & Company.
The company did its banking with appellee bank, located at Sioux Falls. In its account with said bank, the company deposited funds derived from the sale of hogs and cattle, and money borrowed to carry on its business; and from that account it paid for hogs and cattle purchased, and the expenses of running its business. It was a general deposit and disbursement account, kept for the transaction of its business. The transactions on which plaintiff's case is predicated were:
On May 17, 1920, Hopkins-Harrington Company purchased from appellant three carloads of hogs at the agreed price of $ 6,903.75, and in payment therefor delivered to appellant its check for that amount, drawn on appellee bank; and on May 18th, the company bought four carloads of hogs from appellant at the agreed price of $ 8,111.21, and gave its check in payment for said hogs in that amount, drawn on appellee bank. Most of the hogs in these two purchases were included in shipments made by Hopkins-Harrington Company to Armour & Company, but some of them were not. Of these purchases, some 32 hogs were not shipped to Armour & Company.
The evidence discloses the manner of doing business to be that Hopkins-Harrington Company would load and consign cars of hogs to Armour & Company, procure a bill of lading from the railway company, make out an invoice showing the amount of the shipment, the price paid, and the party from whom purchased, and make out a sight draft on Armour & Company for the amount of said shipment; and the draft, with the invoice and bill of lading attached, would be deposited in appellee bank in the general account of Hopkins-Harrington Company. In the record appears the ledger account of Hopkins-Harrington Company with appellee bank, showing balance to begin on May 17th, and credits and debits on and after that date until the account was finally closed, on May 20th. This account consists of many items. It is only necessary to notice items involved in this case.
On May 17th, Hopkins-Harrington Company made a deposit in its general account, of $ 20,419.59. This deposit was a draft drawn by Hopkins-Harrington Company against Armour & Company. The draft was for hogs shipped to Armour & Company on that day. Attached to the draft was an invoice of the shipment and the shipping contract with the railroad company. On May 18th the company deposited a draft for $ 28,547.79, drawn on Armour & Company for hogs shipped, in the same manner. Included in said shipments on which said drafts so deposited were drawn, were hogs sold by appellant to Hopkins-Harrington Company. Also, on May 17th, the company made another general deposit of $ 2,900, and on May 19th it deposited $ 6,179.77. What these deposits consisted of, the record does not disclose. Many checks were drawn against the account and paid. Appellee bank owned and held matured notes of the Hopkins-Harrington Company, upon which there was due, on May 17th, $ 15,333.34; and on that day the bank paid these notes out of the account, by charging the account on that date with the amount due on said notes and canceling the indebtedness, and returned the notes to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial