Randolph Fruit Co. v. Galbreath (1917) · DecisionDepot

Randolph Fruit Co. v. Galbreath

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

California Court of Appeal Jun 6, 1917 No. Civ. No. 1831.Published

Before: James

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an agent who represents to a principal that goods were sold at a specific price and makes returns accordingly cannot later dispute those returns to claim additional deductions, absent a showing of excusable mistake.

Issues

Whether an agent may recover funds paid to a principal as 'advances' after having previously represented those payments as final settlements based on specific sale prices.
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the agent was bound by its representations of sale prices to the principal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In such a case the agent may not be permitted to dispute the correctness of his returns and later attempt to charge his principal with a greater amount of deductions, where no reasonable ground of error or excusable mistake is shown.”

“It is very commonly held that a factor may by his words and acts make himself liable to an accounting for a specific price where goods are intrusted to his possession and for sale.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

JAMES, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover, as for money paid out at the instance and request and for the benefit of defendant, the sum of $617.49, together with interest. Judgment was for the defendant. The appeal is taken from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and is presented on the judgment-roll and a statement of the case.

Plaintiff, in 1912, was engaged in the handling and marketing of fruit. In the same year defendant was the owner of an orchard which was then producing oranges and grape fruit. The orchard was located in San Bernardino County, California, while the defendant was a resident of the city of St. Louis, Missouri. In the year mentioned, one of plaintiff’s officers, having apparently observed that there was some especially fine fruit in the orchard of defendant, wrote to the defendant this letter:

“Dear Sir: We were very much surprised to learn that you had sold your oranges at Highland and felt sure that you did not know the condition there—therefore took the liberty of wiring you the facts in the case. A few days ago, since the frost, I made a careful inspection of your orchard, and have no hesitancy in pronouncing your crop the finest oranges I ever saw; they are not frozen nor did I find any evidence of frosted fruit. It was only now and then that a tree in the top and the young shoots showed any evidence of being touched, but the fruit is in perfect condition. Your sizes are exceptional for this year. The majority of the oranges from other groves are small and owing to the cold weather will not size up sufficiently to make them merchantable. This makes fruit of good size, such as yours, command a premium.

“I was afraid that they had misrepresented to you that the fruit was frozen, and not knowing the exact condition, that you had not received the market value, took the liberty of telegraphing you. We have received your wire in reply, instructing us to call Mr. Norton, which we did immediately on receipt of same but found him away from home. However, Mrs. Norton answered the telephone and advised me that she had received a telegram from you and was then endeavor

[30]

ing to reach Mr. Norton, on the phone at Rialto. She stated that he would return this evening and she would have him call me on the phone. I will advise you as soon as I have a talk with him as to just what is the status of affairs regarding the sale. Tours very truly,

Related research

fill the order mentioned in the previous communication of the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter plaintiff wired the defendant that it had “sold two cars your oranges for immediate shipment at one dollar ninety cents f. o. b.” The reply came immediately : “Have instructed Norton to have two cars of oranges picked. Sold at one ninety f. o. b. Before selling more wire price first as may not want to sell but hold for higher market.” From time to time plaintiff made deposits to the credit of defendant in the San Bernardino bank designated by the defendant. Defendant later wrote making some complaint and asking for particulars as to sales made and the reply came in the course of time. One of the inquiries was regarding the two carloads of oranges which the defendant was advised were to be sold for the price hereinbefore mentioned. Touching that matter, the letter of the plaintiff contained this statement: “In remitting you on the 759 boxes at the above prices, less our packing and selling charge of 47% cents a box, we are paying you for the fruit on the basis on which it was sold. ’ ’ Other statements contained in the letter were of similar import. However, a number of months after the shipment of the crop, or that portion of it handled by the plaintiff, this action was brought wherein the plaintiff sought to recover back a portion of the money so paid to the defendant, the claim being that this money was paid as advances and not as for a concluded sale of the fruit. There is no dispute but that if it were a fact that the oranges and grape fruit were sold at the prices stated by the plaintiff in its letters and telegrams, there was made by reason of the alleged advances no excess payment over such prices to the defendant. Plaintiff’s position is that the entire transaction was an open matter, and that when in its letters and telegrams a price was referred to, that price was not a net price to the defendant but was subject to other charges and conditions of the eastern market not at the time known to the plaintiff. This position is not at all borne out by the statements of the plaintiff as contained in its various letters and telegrams, especially in that letter written in reply to the defendant when the latter complained about the returns and asked for more specific accounting. Defendant ivas told, for instance, that “in remitting you on the 759 boxes at the above prices, less our packing and selling charge of 47% cents a box, we are paying you for the fruit on the basis on which it was sold.” It is plain enough that the understanding to be derived from the various

AI Brief

Synopsis

JAMES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief