Mankins v. Forward Movement Syndicate (1915) · DecisionDepot

Mankins v. Forward Movement Syndicate

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Aug 24, 1915 No. Civ. No. 1350.Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trustee in bankruptcy stands in the shoes of the bankrupt and cannot claim the benefits of a conditional sales contract without fulfilling all of the bankrupt's obligations, including the payment of damages for breached covenants.

Issues

Whether a trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to the property under a conditional sales contract by paying only the stumpage fees without satisfying other contractual covenants.
Whether the defendant was entitled to offset damages resulting from the bankrupt's breach of contract against the value of the property held under the conditional sale.

Disposition. affirmed

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CHIPMAN, P. J.

This was an action for an accounting, an injunction, and for the possession of certain personal property, to wit, wood. The findings were against the defendants other than defendant Forward Movement Syndicate, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. The other defendants do not appeal and need no further notice. The court rendered judgment in favor of defendant, on its cross-complaint, for the sum of $3.45 with interest at seven per cent. Plaintiff appeals from this much of the judgment. The first amended complaint was filed May 21, 1912. It does not appear when the original complaint was filed.

Garros had been declared a bankrupt in November, 1911, and, on December 1, 1911, plaintiff duly qualified as trustee. On October 31, 1910, the defendant as first party and Garros as second party entered into a written agreement as follows:

“1st. Party of the second part agrees to cut two thousand (2000) cords more or less of wood (4x4x8 ft. in measurement), white and black oak, and madrone, from that section of Lawndale Ranch known as ‘Lake Region,’ and to be cut where directed by Mr. Edward Sheehan, Superintendent of said ranch, but party of second part not to be compelled to cut wood from any inaccessible places involving

too great

expense to remove same.

“2nd. Party of second part agrees to cut wood out of a face, that is to work up all the trees clean that will yield merchantable timber into either wood or charcoal.

“3d. Party of second part agrees to pile for burning all brush too small for wood or charcoal.

[287]

“4th. All wood cut during fall and winter of 1910-1911 to be removed from the ground by or before Nov. 1st to leave said land accessible for planting eucalyptus.

“5th. All wood to be at contractor’s risk after cutting, save during such time, if any, when party of first part may elect to burn the brush to clear the land for planting before removal of wood as per terms herein.

“6th. Party of second part hereby agrees to pay stumpage, Seventy-five cents ($.75) per cord for all wood cut in four feet wood or fourteen inch stove wood, two tiers to each cord, and for all charcoal burned to pay five cents per sack, 50 lbs. to the sack, party of second part to be allowed to use the brush of pine trees to cover charcoal pits in burning.

Related research

and to dispose of the same “to the amount that may have been due it under the above mentioned contract at the time that plaintiff was appointed trustee therein”; that plaintiff has at all times refused to perform any of the conditions of said contract except only to pay stumpage; that, prior to September 1,1911, said Carros sold for his own use and benefit certain wood and charcoal for which he did not pay and has not paid the stumpage charge; that, .on that day and until November 15, 1911, there remained on defendant’s said ranch 1013 cords of wood and from September 1 to October 1, 1911, there remained 2010 sacks of charcoal; that, by agreement between plaintiff and defendant, the latter sold said charcoal for the best obtainable price the proceeds to be “kept intact to abide the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to the respective rights of the creditors of said Carros and said defendant”; that, between November 15,1911, and April 11, 1912, defendant, claiming to be the owner, sold certain of said wood for the net price of $636.75 and defendant has received in all for said wood and charcoal the net sum of $1195.55 and there is now upon defendant’s said ranch certain wood of a value found to which plaintiff is entitled and the court allowed plaintiff two months’ time in which to remove the same from the premises. No complaint is made of this latter provision of the findings or judgment. The court also found that Carros, in October, 1910, turned over to defendant a team of horses and' wagon of a value found as security for the performance of said contract by Carros. This item is taken into consideration in the accounting. The court then found that defendant had been damaged by Carros’s failure to keep certain of his covenants, to wit: Three hundred and seventy-five dollars for failure “to clear the land upon which the wood and charcoal were produced from brush and timber; $150.00 for failure to cut standing timber that has not been cut; $75.00 for failure to cut into stove wood wood that is down and suitable for this purpose, making a total of $600.00. ’ ’

Mankins v. Forward Movement Syndicate

AI Brief

Synopsis

CHIPMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. D. Vassey, (Seal) Forward Movement Syndicate,

AI Brief