Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1912-05-16
supreme Court Favors Farmers ON
Grain Contract Cases. Affects
Camas Prairie Farmers
BOTH MUST SIGN CONTRACT
unless Partial Payment or Delivery
Is Made, Contracts are Invalid
If One Sided

Last fall the farmers Of Camas ana
Nez Perez Prairies were visited by
buyers from number of grain firms
and their barley crop contracted for
at what proved to be away below the
market price at the time Of delivery,
as barley went soaring and reached
figure better than $1.65. A number
Of these so-called contracts were so
written that the farmer only was
stuck, not being signed by the COM
pany. When the price of barley began
to mount skyward the farmers who
had signed up at a low price began
to awaken to seek what redress they
had.
W. N. Cassidy, of this city represent
ed two gentlemen, James o. Finch
and Ed. Graham, who refused to de-
liver the grain and were subsequent
~ sued by the buyers for damages to
the extent of $1,000. Recently the su-
preme court ruled on an identical case
that the contracts were invalid and no
doubt the action viii be dismissed at
the coming term of district court in
Idaho county
The following news dispatch gives
the opinion of the court in rendering
the decision in the cases referred to:
A decision has been handed down
by the supreme court in the damage
suit entitled NJ. H. Houser VS.. Ho-
bart Bros, in which the decision of
the lower court favorable to the de-
PENDANTS is affirmed. The defendants
are farmers Of the Ito section and
action was instituted to collect dam
ages to. the amount of $4,000 alleged
to have been sustained because of the
failure of the defendants to deliver a
crop of barley to the plaintiff under
the provisions of a contract entered
into early in the season.
The supreme court holds that in
this state under the statute of
frauds it is necessary for both parties
to sign memorandum relating to
the sale of personal property where
there is no partial payment or par
tail delivery at the time the agree
ment is made.
1t was shown during the trial in
the lower court that the price of bar
ley materially advanced after the con-
tract between Houser and Hobart
Bros. was made and the defendants
refused to deliver the crop to the
plaintiff. The action was brought to
recover the amount represented be-
tween the contract price and the
MIDI, a4io ma in the moon is coon
amount the barley was worth at the
time set for delivery.
Mr.. Houser is plaintiff in a num-
Der of other damage actions wherein
the defendants failed to comply with
the provisions of early season contracts
to purchase grain, but the decision in
the Hobart case does not effect trans
actions where there had been a par
tial delivery or a partial payment.
Other grain companies are plain
tiffs in similar actions and the aggre-
gate amount involved in such cases
now filed in the central Idaho sections
is in excess Of 100000. The contracts
used by the grain companies are very
dissimilar and in most cases the same
have been signed by the agents Of the
company engaged in the contracting.
Statement is made that comparative
~ few cases will be affected by the
decision in the Hobart case, but it ID
expected the points Of law involved
in other suits filed win BE- covered
in the decisions in other contract cases
now awaiting decisions by the su-