Meyer v. California Prune & Apricot Growers' Ass'n

PULLEN, P. J. Plaintiff, a prune grower of Tehama County, brought this action against the Tehama County Dried Fruit Association and the California Prune and Apricot Growers’ Association (each a non-profit cooperative marketing association) to recover the sum of $448, claimed to be due him for some 16,000 pounds of prunes delivered by him to defendants in 1937.

The amended complaint alleges, in substance, that plaintiff entered into a written contract with the Tehama County Dried Fruit Association (hereinafter referred to as the Local), wherein he agreed to sell to said Local his entire crop of dried prunes grown on his ranch during the season of 1937, and to deliver them to the warehouse of defendant California Prune and Apricot Growers’ Association (herein referred to as the Association) in Red Bluff, and for which the Local agreed to pay plaintiff the best price obtainable therefor, less costs of marketing. It is further alleged that on or about September 1, 1937, defendant Association notified plaintiff that it would pay him an advance payment for the 1937 crop at a certain rate for specified grades. It is then alleged the prunes were inspected on the ranch, and plaintiff was, by defendants, directed to deliver the crop to the warehouse of the Association in Red Bluff. It is also alleged plaintiff made delivery and received receipts therefor from the Association, and thereafter plaintiff received grade sheets, and was paid for some 12,000 pounds, but the defendants failed to grade or pay for an additional 16,000 pounds here in question, of the asserted value of $56 per ton, or a total of $448.

The answer admitted the membership of plaintiff, and the payments made, but denied any failure to grade the 16,000 pounds here in dispute, and alleged affirmatively this lot of prunes was graded and declared unfit to be marketed, and a tender to plaintiff of $80.37 in full payment therefor. During the trial it developed the theory of plaintiff was that the notification to him by the Association as to the advance payments constituted a new contract between him and the Association, which superseded the membership agreement between [634]plaintiff and the Local. The trial court adopted this theory, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff against the Association only.

Five points are presented as grounds for reversal,—first, the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action; second, the court erred in finding that the notification as to advance payments constituted an oral or any contract which superseded the membership agreement; third, the court erred in finding that defendants failed to grade the prunes; fourth, the court erred in giving judgment for plaintiff in an amount in excess of $80.37, and lastly, that the court erred in failing to render any judgment as to the Local.