Graham v. Flory

BARNARD, P. J. This is an action to recover the value of certain hay. The hay was grown on land in Imperial County belonging to the plaintiff and her husband, and was owned by them. A few days prior to May 15, 1952, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into some arrangement for the sale of the hay. The defendant, who testified that his occupation was that of a hay dealer or commission merchant, had a place of business at Paramount, in Los Angeles County. On May 15, 1952, he sent a man named Lester to plaintiff’s ranch to pick up the hay, giving him a written order. Lester presented the pickup order to the plaintiff and loaded 310 bales of hay on his truck. As Lester attempted to drive across a bridge over a canal owned by the Imperial Irrigation District, which canal adjoined the plaintiff’s property, he missed the bridge and the truck tipped over and spilled the hay into the canal and along its bank.

The canal had only a little water in it at the time but the agents of the Imperial Irrigation District told the plaintiff to get the hay out of the canal as they intended to turn in a large amount of water in a day or two. On the same day, May 15, the plaintiff phoned to the defendant and told him about the accident and why the hay must be moved at once. The defendant told her to get a “loader” to get the hay out of the canal, that he would pay the cost, and that he would send a truck at once to get the hay. She got the loader and the hay was put on the bank of the canal, along the county road. The defendant did not send for the hay, which remained in that position for more than four months. On August 4, the plaintiff brought this action. On September 20, a man who said he was sent by the defendant came and picked up the hay. This man took the hay to the nearest scales, where it was weighed. The plaintiff then told this man not to take the hay out of the valley until she had seen her attorney. Later, she told him to take the hay to another one of her ranches where it would be safe. He did so, and the hay remained there until the time of the trial.

The complaint in this action alleged the sale of hay of the [731]reasonable value of $706.20, for which the defendant agreed to pay. In a second cause of action an account stated was alleged, whereby the defendant agreed that he was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $706.20. A third cause of action alleged an open book account in the same amount. The defendant entered a general denial as to each cause of action. The court found that all of the allegations of the complaint are true, and that none of the denials contained in the answer are true. A judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed.