Turner v. Kearney
Before: McFarland, Temple
Synopsis
Contract to Harvest Grain Crop—Con struction—Stipulated Facts— Unnecessary Loss—Recoupment of Damage.—A contract to harvest, thresh, and sack the whole of a grain crop in a thorough and farmer-like manner, without waste or unnecessary loss, and to use one or more combined harvesters in good working condition, is to be construed in view of the surrounding facts, and where, in an action to recover the balance due on the contract, it was stipulated that by reason of all the grain not being harvested within forty days after it was fit for harvesting, there was a loss through its shelliug out by wind and other causes, and by reason of weeds interfering with the harvesting and cleaning of the grain, to the extent of eight hundred dollars; and further stipulated that if, as matter of law, under the contract, it was the duty of plaintiff to have provided sufficient means to have threshed all the defendant’s grain without waste or unnecessary loss, then said defendant is entitled to said amount as damages, otherwise not, the plaintiff contending that it was only his duty, under the contract, to provide one harvester, and to continue the work therewith without cessation, until it was finished, the stipulation and contract must be construed as using the words “ waste or unnecessary loss” in the same sense, and the contract is to be construed as agreeing to use one or more combined harvesters, as the condition of the grain should indicate, it being known to the parties that the necessity for a quick and early harvest must depend greatly on the season, and as would be necessary that it might be done in a good and farmer-like manner, and without waste and unnecessary loss; and, under the contract and stipulation, the defendant is entitled to recoup the agreed amount of damage, with interest.
Id.—General Intent—Reasonable Construction.—The clause of the contract in regard to the use of one or more combined harvesters, must be construed so as to effectuate the general intent manifest in the contract, and must receive a reasonable construction, and not one which seems unreasonable, or which makes the contract such as no farmer in his senses would have deliberately made.
Opinion — Temple
Temple, J. This is an action to recover balance due on a contract for harvesting grain for the defendant. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant contends that there should be a deduction of eight hundred dollars from the judgment, on the ground that plaintiff did not harvest the grain in a good and farmer-like manner as he had contracted to do, and the evidence, and a stipu[64]lation. made to serve in lieu of evidence, shows that there resulted an unnecessary loss to that amount.
It was stipulated in the contract that plaintiff “ will harvest, thresh, and sack all of the grain now growing on the Fruit Vale estate in Fresno county, and belonging to the said Kearney during the current season of 1893; that he will harvest all of said grain in a thorough and farmer-like manner, without waste or unnecessary loss; that he will begin such harvesting as soon as any of said grain is thoroughly ripe and fit for harvest, and will thereafter work continuously until the entire harvest is completed. That for the purpose of performing said work he will use one or more eighteen-foot combined harvesters, which shall be and be maintained in thoroughly good working condition.”
A great deal of testimony was taken at the trial on both sides upon the question as to whether the grain ought not to have been sooner harvested, and whether, in consequence of delay, there was not unnecessary loss resulting from the grain being shelled out by the wind, or the growth of weeds, which prevented an efficient harvesting thereof. Many of the facts were then agreed upon by a stipulation made at the trial, as follows:
“ It is hereby stipulated and admitted by the parties hereto, for the purposes of the present action, that the plaintiff entered upon the performance of the contract referred to in his complaint and annexed to defendant’s answer, to wit, on or about the twelfth day of June, 1893, and as soon as defendant’s grain was ripe and fit for harvesting; and that the plaintiff harvested the grain on defendant’s land in a thorough and farmer-like manner, without waste or unnecessary loss (except such loss as may have resulted from the delay hereinafter specified), and that the plaintiff worked continuously with an eighteen-foot harvester, and its appliances and crew until the work was completed, to wit, August 29, 1893, and that on August 12, 1893, he brought another harvester to work, and both harvesters and their crews and appliances were thereafter continuously engaged in
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)