Webb v. Casassa

California Court of Appeal Apr 12, 1927 No. Docket No. 3035.Published

Before: Pinch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants were liable for the unpaid purchase price of grape shook, as the evidence supported the finding that the plaintiff did not breach the shipping contract and the defendants' cross-complaint was meritless. Furthermore, the court determined the contract was joint and several and that the plaintiff remained a proper party to sue despite a collateral assignment of the account.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the plaintiff did not breach the grape shipping contract.
Whether the contract for grape shook was joint and several, making the defendants liable.
Whether the plaintiff was the real party in interest despite assigning the account as collateral security.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where all the parties who unite in a promise receive some benefit from the consideration, whether past or present, their promise is presumed to be joint and several.”

“A promise, made in the singular number, but executed by several persons, is presumed to be joint and several.”

“The assignment was by way of security only, and the plaintiff still had an interest in the property assigned and was, therefore, a proper party plaintiff, though not a necessary party.”

PINCH, P. J.

— During the year 1923 Domenico Casassa was the owner of a vineyard near Santa Rosa, which he had leased for that year to A. Pinoeehio, the returns from the vineyard to be divided between the parties to the lease. In August of that year Casassa and Pinoeehio entered into

[309]

an agreement with the plaintiff, designated as a “grape shipping contract,” and providing, among other things, as follows:

“The undersigned grower hereby authorizes and instructs H. E. Webb, ... as his agent to arrange for the loading in cars of the grapes hereinafter specified, to procure loading materials, to employ loading labor, to arrange for state and federal inspection and to market said grapes upon the terms hereinafter stated. . . . The grower agrees to harvest said grapes properly and to deliver them into cars at any shipping point to be designated by the said Webb within reasonable hauling distance from above mentioned premises. ’ ’

The agreement provided for the payment to the plaintiff of a commission for his services. It was signed by Casassa and Pinocchio and also by the plaintiff. Casassa and Pinocehio executed another instrument reading as follows:

“In consideration of the sale and delivery of certain shook to me by H. E. Webb of the agreed value of $437.50, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I hereby sell and agree to deliver to the said Webb — delivery to be made P. O. B. cars, in containers and condition as provided in a certain grape shipping contract . . . heretofore made by me with the said Webb — such quantity of the grapes described in said grape shipping contract ... as shall amount in net value, at the current platform price at time and place of shipment, to the said above mentioned sum agreed upon as the purchase price of said shook. Delivery under this sale shall comprise all of the grapes picked by me during the 1923 season beginning with the first, until sufficient quantity shall have been delivered to discharge this contract.

“No. 3500 at 12i/2<i.

“Signed: D. Casassa, Grower.

“A. Pinocchio.”

No grapes were delivered to the plaintiff under either contract, but Casassa and Pinocehio sold their grapes to other persons. The plaintiff delivered shook to them as provided for by the second contract. The complaint alleges that Casassa and Pinocchio refused to perform the terms of the first contract, to plaintiff’s damage, and also that they

Webb v. Casassa

AI Brief

PINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief