Meilink v. Pollard

VAN DYKE, J. Plaintiff and respondent, George Meilink, having supplied to appellants, Pollard and Goncalves, a farming copartnership, certain insecticides for crop dusting brought this action to recover the amount due therefor. The insecticides were used in an attempt to control thrips and red spider infesting a crop of beans which appellants were growing by dry farming methods. Appellants cross-complained, seeking damages, claiming the dust used had destroyed the crops. [796]They alleged that respondent, a distributor of insecticides manufactured for the market by others, had agreed to furnish a suitable insecticide and to properly apply it; that he did furnish two varieties of insecticides and applied the same, using an airplane for the purpose, but was negligent in that the materials were harmful to the crops, and were applied in excessive quantities and unskilfully; that as a result the crops were destroyed. These claims being controverted, the cause was tried; the court made findings generally favorable to respondent; gave judgment for respondent in the amount he sued for and adjudged appellants take nothing by their cross-complaint.

Appellants, in support of their appeal, contend generally that the evidence does not support the findings of the court upon which the judgment against them is based. This contention brings into operation the familiar rule that we must view the evidence and the permissible inferences. that may be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to respondent and must resolve all conflicts of evidence in support of the findings and judgment if reasonably possible. Responsive to that rule, we shall state the evidence which does in our opinion support these findings, but before doing so will say that from a careful reading of the voluminous record presented here it is apparent that a strong factual showing was made by appellants in support of their pleaded claims of liability. Yet we are bound by the rule above stated to affirm the judgment of the trial court if it is supported by substantial evidence in all essential matters. We think that it is.

Respondent testified that he was engaged in the business of selling insecticides, handling the products of a number of companies manufacturing such materials; that about July 1, 1948, he talked with Pollard, one of the appellants, about dusting the bean crops and at his request quoted prices of insecticides, including the cost of applying the materials used to the crops; that he told Pollard he would use a suitable dusting material; that Pollard replied, “Go ahead, if you fellows can do the job”; that he then got in touch with a firm doing crop dusting work and engaged it; that he delivered two types of insecticides to the airport out of which the dusting firm operated its planes; that though Pollard asked for a certain brand of insecticide which he desired, Meilink told him that he was unable to obtain that particular brand, but could get a similar material and Pollard told him to go ahead and that that was the extent of the conversation; that on the