Case ID: nc_183/html/0338-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stacy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. M. JONES v. UNION GUANO COMPANY, Inc.
    (Filed 19 April, 1922.)
    Constitutional Law — Contracts—Fertilizer—Statutes.
    C. S., 4697, requiring that no damages to or a shortage of crops may be recovered when resulting from the use of fertilizer sold for the purpose of raising them, except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients, where no claim that the sale is prohibited by statute or that the sale was dishonest or of fraudulent goods, does not impair the right of contract, and is constitutional and valid. Fertilizer Worlcs v. Ailcen, 175 N. C., 402; Fertilizer Oo. v. Thomas, 181 N. C., 274, cited and approved.
    
      Appeal by plaintiff from Long, J., at November Term, 1921, of ROCKINGHAM.
    Civil action to recover damages for an alleged breach, of warranty in the sale of certain fertilizers; plaintiff alleging that his crop of tobacco was injured by reason of some deleterious or harmful substance contained in the fertilizer sold by the defendant.
    At the close of plaintiff’s evidence there was a judgment as of nonsuit, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
    
      J. M. Sharp and Fentress & J eróme for plaintiff.
    
    
      O. 0. Ffird, Glidewell & Mayberry, Manly, Hendren & Womhle, and Swinh & Hutchins for defendant.
    
   Stacy, J.

This is one of nineteen suits brought by resident farmers of Rockingham County against the Union Guano Company for alleged crop damage or shortage occasioned by reason of the use of certain fertilizer manufactured and sold by the defendant. See S. c., 180 N. C., 319.

The plaintiff in this particular case bought fifty-one sacks of the fertilizer in question, and upon trial there was evidence tending to show its inferior quality, deficiency of stated ingredients, injury to the crop of tobacco, etc. But his Honor dismissed the action and entered judgment as of nonsuit upon the ground that there had been no compliance with C. S., 4697, with respect to having the fertilizer tested by chemical analysis, as required by said section as a condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to maintain this suit. Upon the record it must be conceded that plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of the law, which clearly provides that no suit for shortage, or damage to crops, resulting from the use of fertilizers shall be brought, except after chemical analysis showing deficiency of ingredients, unless the dealer has been selling-goods that are outlawed.by the statute, or has offered for sale in this State, during the season, dishonest or fraudulent goods. Fertilizer Works v. Aiken, 175 N. C., 402.

In order to surmount the barrier and to obviate the difficulty thus presented, plaintiff attacks this section of the law, relating to agriculture, as unconstitutional and void. He says its provisions are unreasonable and impossible of fulfillment. But we are unable to’ agree with the plaintiff in this position. The reasons underlying the passage of the statute in question are fully stated with approval and supported by the citation of several authorities in Fertilizer Works v. Aiken, 175 N. C., 398. We need not repeat here what has so recently been said in that opinion. There is nothing in the act which impairs the right of contract, and we think it is constitutional. Fertilizing Co. v. Thomas, 181 N. C., 274.

Affirmed.