The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1902-05-30
THE
Wisconsin Tobacco Reporter,
Edgerton. Wisconsin.
NOTE BOOK SKETCHES.

will be of interest to both the growers
and buyers of tobacco. The instructions
OF Judge Clementson to the jury, which
is reproduced in this column, made plain
the binding effect of the contracts gen
orally used by buyers, and established a
law that is we'll worth preserving as a
guide in future transactions. The un-
fortunate experience of receiving the
1900 tobacco crop was the occasion of
more litigation than attended any previ-
Gus crop in the state. When these suits
have all been fought out in the courts,
the rights of both parties to the usual
tobacco contracts will be better under
stood and much future trouble in the
buying and receiving of tobacco pre-
vented
*.*
The decision above referred to grew
out of an action brought by Sutter Bros,
the we'll known tobacco dealers of Chi
cago, against P. n. Peterson and Ole P.
Olson, two Crawford county farmers, to
recover advance money paid on contracts
for the sale of their tobacco, as we'll as
damages for the non-delivery of the
CROPS. From the facts that appeared at
the trial, it seems both growers declined
to deliver their tobacco until the buyers
of the plaintiff had visited their farms
and deductions for the amount of dam
age in the crops agreed to. Mr. G. F..
Tallard, who had acquired an interest in
the contracts, called upon the growers
and informed them that the tobacco
would be received upon 25 per cent re-
duction. The farmers declined to ac-
cept these terms and sold their tobacco
to another buyer at a slight advance.
Later both Peterson and Olson made a
tender of the return of the advance
money paid them by Sutter Bros, which
was declined. Mr.. Tallard was the prin-
cipal witness of the plaintiff on the trial.
The defense put upon the stand the buy
ers to whom the tobacco was sold the
second time, who sWore there was but
little or no damage in either of the crops.
This testimony, the judge intimated, if
true, would tend to increase the amount
of~aamage the plaintiff was entitled to
recover. At the close of the testimony
Judge Clementson instructed the jury to
find for the plaintiff for the amount of
advance money paid the growers on con-
tract and also what damages they be-
lieved the evidence warranted for the
non-delivery of the tobacco. The amount
awarded was sman, about 500, but suf-
fcient to carry the costs of the litigation
upon the defendants.
*x*
The charge of Judge Clementson to
the Jury so specifically defines the law
of contracts that we reproduce it in full:
1.-The contract in this case, which is in
writing, certifes, over the signature of
Peter n. Peterson, that [ have sold to
Nels Solverson for account of Sutter
Brothers my 1900 crop of Spanish leaf
tobacco. amounting to acres, Or about
- pounds, in bundles, at 81 cents, 5
off at cents, some filters tied. All dam
aged tobacco excluded, and to be deliv-
cred in good packing condition at Sol
diers Grove, February 10th, 1901, at his
option. There is no incumbrance on this
tobacco
This is a written contract, and the
one for the contract Of sale of the 313
acres is in language similar. 1t is con-
tTdCL* tldC tuo EOuIL uUSC COuSCl uC, OC-
ing a contract in writing, in the light it
is true of attending circumstances, if
there is any doubt as to the meaning of
the language.
Il construe the contract to mean this:
That the Sutter Bros. were entitled to
receive from Mr.. Peterson at the prices
named the leaf tobacco that was in that
crop and that was not damaged That
1.-Ax 4f Dnfn b.
clude the damaged tobacco and deliver
only that that was not damaged, or ten
der its delivery, and that then he was
entitled to receive the price named in
this contract for it. 1t was not the duty
under this contract of the plaintiffs in
this case or their agents to go to the farm
of Mr.. Peterson to make an estimate of
what was good and what was bad. The
proof shows they were willing to do it,
that is to say, Mr.. Solverson and another
agent of Sutter Bros. were willing to
make an estimate. They did 60 to his
farm and make an estimate. That was
for the benefit of Mr.. Peterson so that if
they could agree upon the amount of
damaged tobacco that there was in that
expense of excluding the damaged to-
UdCCO, UuL WOulo UclIN6E LuC WuOlo crop.
The agents of the plaintiff did go, make
the examination and report to Mr.. Peter
son that 25 per cent in their estimation
was damaged. Mr.. Peterson did not
agree that this was SO and wanted a
higher price for his tobacco than 25 per
cent off from the contract price. And
Mr.. Peterson testifes, and he is the only
one that does testify in this case as to
that, that after conversation with Sol
verson, Solverson said that that was all
they could do and unless (using his lam
guage) would submit to it they would
not take the crop. That means, not that
they would not take the good tobacco at
the price named, but they would not
take that crop that he had upon his
premises including good and bad, and
when that was told to him then it was
his duty in my estimation, to tender to
them of that crop the good tobacco, leav-
ing the damaged out. That he never
did. 1t is evident to me, from all of the
testimony of this case, that it was never
the thought of the agent or agents of
Sutter Bros. to decline to take of that