Southern California Oil Syndicate of London, England v. Lompoc Produce & Real Estate Co. (1920) · DecisionDepot

Southern California Oil Syndicate of London, England v. Lompoc Produce & Real Estate Co.

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

California Court of Appeal Feb 6, 1920 No. Civ. No. 2679.Published

Before: James

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant could not unilaterally exceed the maximum advances specified in a written contract to cover crop protection costs and deduct those additional expenditures from the proceeds owed to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether a party to a crop-proceeds contract may deduct expenditures exceeding the contractually defined maximums for crop protection without a further agreement.

Disposition. affirmed

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

JAMES, J.

This appeal is taken by the defendant from a judgment entered by the trial court granting the relief to secure which the action was brought. In November, 1914, plaintiff was the owner of certain land which had theretofore been and was at the time held by one Tashiro as tenant. Tashiro was, at the time, indebted to the owner of

[44]

the land for rental which had accrued under the terms of the lease. The tenant had also had business relations with the defendant produce company, which latter had handled crops grown by him. Tashiro, being unable to make payment of the amount due to the plaintiff from his own resources, interested the defendant to the extent that, in consideration of the making of the contract hereinafter referred to, he was allowed to continue in the tenancy. The contract referred to was reduced to writing and signed by the plaintiff and the defendant, plaintiff being the first party and defendant the second party, and contained the following terms:

“Whereas, S. Tashiro is the tenant in possession of certain land belonging to the party of the first part, and Whereas the party of the second part has this day advanced to said Tashiro the sum of $550.00 which has been paid to the party of the first part to apply on the rent for the year ending October 31, 1915; and whereas the said Tashiro is indebted to the party of the first part in the sum of $1650.00 on account of the balance of said rent due or to become due, and is also indebted to the party of the second part in certain sums, and has given to the party of the second part a mortgage of all crops to be grown on the above mentioned premises during the ensuing year as security for said last mentioned indebtedness and advances.

“Now, Therefore, it is hereby agreed that the party of the second part shall have a first lien upon said crop under its mortgage for the sum of $550 this day advanced to be applied on the rent, and also for all further sums which the said party of the second part shall advance to said Tashiro after this date, said further advances not to exceed in all the sum of Seven Hundred ($700.00) Dollars.

“It is further agreed that after taking out of the proceeds of said crop the amount of said $550 and said advances, the said proceeds shall be applied upon the balance due the party of the first part as rental, and the party of the first part expressly agrees that said tenant shall not be held in default for non-payment of rent until said crop shall have been harvested. After said rent shall have been paid, the balance of the proceeds of said crop shall be applied in payment of any indebtedness due from said Tashiro to the party of the second part.”

Related research

The crops grown during the year 1915 were harvested and received by the defendant and there was credited upon the books of the defendant the sum of $2,823.29 as the price thereof. Meanwhile the full amount of $550 and seven hundred dollars, covered by the agreement as advances to be made to the tenant by defendant, had been so advanced to.Tashiro. The defendant, however, refused to account to the plaintiff for any part of the crop price, claiming that further advances and expenditures had been made in order to protect the crops of Tashiro, which advances and expenditures more than equaled the difference between the $550 plus the seven hundred dollars and the amount credited as the price of the crop. Defendant, in its answer, made the following allegations: “That on said nineteenth day of May, 1915, said premises had been planted to beans, which were growing thereon, and in order to properly tend and care for said crop of beans, it then became and was necessary to expend considerable sums of money for labor, machinery and supplies; that on said last mentioned date said Tashiro was without funds or credit to enable him to properly tend and care for said crop, and said Tashiro did then and there refuse and fail to tend, take care of, and protect said crop well, or carefully, or at all, and said crop, by reason thereof, was in danger of becoming damaged and destroyed, so that neither plaintiff nor defendant might obtain any money or benefit from the proceeds thereof. That therafter defendant gave notice to plaintiff that the sum of seven hundred dollars advanced to said Tashiro as aforesaid had been expended, and that in order to tend, care for, and harvest said crop it would be necessary to expend further sums therefor, which the said Tashiro was unable to provide, and defendant demanded of plaintiff that plaintiff advance such necessary sums or permit defendant to do so, and first deduct the same from the money received from the sale of said crop; but that plaintiff failed and refused to advance any sums whatever to be used in the protection, caring for and harvesting of said crop. That on the thirty-first day of July, 1915, the defendant, pursuant to the terms of said crop mortgage, and for the purpose of protecting the interests of defendant and plaintiff in said crops, entered upon the said premises and took possession thereof and of the crops growing thereon; and thereafter defendant took all necessary meas

AI Brief

Synopsis

JAMES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief