The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1913-06-17
Supreme Court
Decides in Favor
of Mr.. WherIand
Chief Justice Brown Renders Deci-
sion in Favor of Wherland Elec-
trio Company
MUST ABIDE BY THE CONTRACT
Question Is Who Should Stand Loss
Incurred in Transmission of Elec-
trio Current

Chief Justice Brown, of the Su-
preme Court of the State of Mime
sofa, handed down a decision for the
court last Friday in the case of the
Wherland Electric Company VS.. Aug
ust C. Burmeister, in which decision
the Wherland Electric Company comes
out victorious.
The case is familiar one to our
readers inasmuch as both the plaintiff
and defendant conduct their business
at Redwood Falls and are known here,
as well as from the fact that the case
originated in the District Court in
Redwood County.
Mr.. Burmeister owns and operates
the electric generating plant in this
city. On December 23d, 1909, he en-
tered into contract with R. r.
Wherland, by which he agreed to con-.
struct on the outskirts of this city a
sub-station for the storage of electric
ity, and to deliver therefrom to Wher-
land such electric current and energy
as should be required by him, to be
transmitted over his own wires to his
patrons in neighborhood municipali-
ties. Mr.. Wherland assigned the con-
tract to the Wherland Electric Comp
any.
Mr.. Burmeister constructed the SUBJ
station and thereafter delivered to the
company, under the Wheriand contract
such volume of electricity as the
company required. The contract called
for the measurement at the sub-sta-
ton, and Mr.. Burmeister presented
statements for the amounts due,
which, under protest that an improper
method of measurement had been
adopted, the Wherland Electric Comp
any paid.
The company finally brought an ac-
ton in the district court of Redwood
County to recover the amount which
it claimed to be an overpayment,
brought by the improper measure
ment of the electric current delivered.
Mr.. Werring and Henry Deutsch, the
latter of Minneapolis, were retained
as attorneys by the company.
The case was tried in the district
court last fall, and at that time that
court ordered judgment in favor of
the company and against Mr.. Bur-
meister, the latter appealing to the
Supreme Court from an order of the
lower court denying new trial.
Chief Justice Brown, in his syllabus,
or condensation of the opinion of the
court, states: "A contract for the
sale and delivery of electric current,
providing for the delivery of certain
volume thereof at the storage plant,
or sub-station of the generating comp
any, at certain specified prices, con-
strued and held to obligate the pur-
chaser to pay for such volume of cur
rent as should actually be delivered to
him, and that whatever loss results
from the transmission of the electric
| ity to and the passage through the
transformers at the sub-station must
fall upon the seller"
The Chief Justice, in his opinion
states that the findings of the trial
court are correct. He admits that
the current comes from the power
r1anf of NJ P,,rrna;c ~ N Jo6,:+a
voltage, but in passing through the
transformer certain amount of it is
lost. The question narrows down as
to which party must, under the con-
tract, stand the loss. The trial court
applied the general rule that vendor
who agrees to sell and deliver speci-
fic personal property Of a certain kind,
or prepared in certain way before
delivery, must stand any expense or
loss incurred by him in preparing the
property for delivery, and holds that
the loss of electricity occasioned by
the passage through the transformers
at the sub-station must fall upon Mr..
Burmeister.
Il He agreed, according to the con-
tract, to sell and deliver to the as
signed company specific volume of
electric current. The contract con-
tanned no reference to loss naturally
to occur at the sub-station, and no
sufficient reason appears to justify
, the conclusion that the parties con-