La Rosa v. Glaze

THOMPSON, J.

The defendants have appealed from a judgment which was rendered against them in a suit for damages for the breach of a contract to sell grapes.

It is contended the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence with respect to the quantity of grapes which were produced and in regard to the measure of damages; that Mrs. W. J. Glaze was erroneously made a party defendant; that there is no evidence supporting the finding that she was authorized to act as agent of her husband in signing the agreement to sell the grapes, and that the contract is void for the reason that it was procured by the agent of a broker of farm produce without having been licensed therefor, contrary to the provisions of section 1263 of the Agricultural Code of California.

October 31, 1933, A. B. Badal, acting as agent for the plaintiffs, a copartnership which was engaged in purchasing grapes as a produce broker or commission merchant, procured Mrs. W. J. Glaze to sign a written contract, in behalf of her husband, without his knowledge or authorization, to sell a crop of grapes. The evidence is undisputed that the agent then held no license as such, as required by section 1263 of the Agricultural Code of California. The contract provides in part that:

“Mr. W. J. Glaze, the seller, has sold and the buyer has bought all the hereinafter mentioned fruit crop suitable for Eastern shipment . . . being free from black mildew, red berries, water berries, mold, dry and rain damage produced during the current year on his ranch, Turlock, . . . Variety, Alicanti (grapes) ; Acreage, 10; Sugar content, 22, Est. tonnage, 40; Price per ton, $5.50.”

No cash was paid for the crop or for any portion thereof. Mr. Glaze had previously refused to sell the grapes to the plaintiffs. A few days before Badal procured the contract from Mrs. Glaze, her husband told him he had no grapes to sell. He subsequently sold the'crop to another purchaser. This suit was brought against "W. J. Glaze in October, 1934, for damages for breach of the contract to sell the grapes. The complaint alleges that Mrs. Glaze acted as the agent of

[357]

her husband in executing the contract. All of the material allegations of the complaint were denied. At the trial, over the objection of the defendant, Mrs. Glaze was made a party-defendant in the action. The cause was tried by the court sitting without a jury. Findings were adopted favorable to the plaintiffs upon all the material issues. Judgment was accordingly rendered against the defendants for damages in the sum of $340. From that judgment the defendants have appealed.