White v. Southern Kraft Corporation
| Decision Date | 26 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 12223.,12223. |
| Citation | 132 F.2d 381 |
| Parties | WHITE v. SOUTHERN KRAFT CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
L. W. Bower and L. B. Smead, both of Camden, Ark., for appellant.
J. E. Gaughan, John L. McClellan, and Thomas Gaughan, all of Camden, Ark., for appellee.
Before STONE, SANBORN and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
This is an action by Goodwin White against Southern Kraft Corporation for breach of contract. The contract alleged was for sale and delivery of wood for a five-year term beginning January 1, 1940. Delivery was made and accepted until September 14, 1940, when the company notified White to deliver no more wood. This action resulted. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, a motion for directed verdict was sustained and from the ensuing judgment plaintiff has appealed.
The sole issue presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury. The trial judge placed his determination on lack of mutuality. Appellee urges three separate grounds for upholding the judgment: (1) Failure to prove the contract alleged; (2) lack of mutuality in the contract; and (3) statute of frauds. We think the contract is within the statute of frauds of Arkansas and, therefore, confine our examination to that matter.
The fact situation is as follows: Appellee operated a paper mill at Camden, Arkansas. C. J. Goodwin was in charge of this mill with authority to make contracts for delivery of pulpwood for the manufacture of paper. Such contracts were verbal agreements with various individuals for delivery of specified quantities of wood weekly at stated prices. Those contracts were terminable by either party at will.
About the time the mill was established at Camden, the president of appellee personally furnished money to Goodwin and two others to purchase an automobile service station there, known as "77 Service Station." It was arranged that this station should have such a contract for delivery of wood to the mill in order to make the operation of the station more profitable. Eventually, Goodwin acquired full ownership of the station. Thereafter, he made a written offer of sale thereof to appellant which was accepted in writing and title passed as of January 1, 1940. This offer of sale was as follows:
The prime purpose of this letter was sale of the station. The contract for wood deliveries is an inducement or part consideration offered by the seller. This action is on that contract. All that appears in writing concerning the terms of that contract is: "The wood quota to continue under the same terms and condition as now for five years from January 1st, 1940." The clear meaning of this is that some arrangement for wood is in existence and that the arrangement will be continued for five years. What the arrangement is as to quantities, prices, deliveries and other provisions is in no wise stated. It may be presumed that the parties knew what the arrangement thus referred to was. However, it would take evidence outside of the letter to establish what the arrangement was; in fact, most of the evidence here is devoted to showing what the arrangement was. This evidence reveals that the arrangement was entirely oral. Therefore, the fact situation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb v. Southern Plaswood Corporation
...its performance and is afterwards discharged, the employer is liable only for his wages for the time he served." In White v. Southern Kraft Corp., 8 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 381, on page 382, the court said: "As to the contention that part performance by appellant will satisfy the statute. Alth......
-
Smithey v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
...her contract. It is a well established rule of law that a contract partly in writing and partly in parol is verbal. White v. Southern Kraft Corporation, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 381; Izard v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 128 Ark. 433, 194 S.W. In reaching the conclusion that a contract partly in writ......
-
Simmons v. Birge Co.
...37 C.J.S., Frauds, Statute of, p. 666, § 181; Edgar Bros. Co. v. Schmeiser Mfg. Co., 33 Cal.App. 667, 166 P. 366; White v. Southern Kraft Corporation, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 381. The door must not be opened to possible fraud, perjury, or to honest but mistaken recollection of memory. That which m......
-
Brownell v. Suehiro
...writing by the statute of frauds can be supplied by parol evidence. Ochs v. Weil, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 142 F.2d 758; White v. Southern Kraft Corporation, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 381. The memorandum is insufficient to take the gift out of the statute of The judgment of the district court is reversed......