The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1919-06-20
The Supreme Court Knocks One Eye
Out of the Paul Law.

down decision tOucninS upon tue aui
law which is supposed to be the most
drastic legislation covering the sale of
tobacco ever put on the statute books.
The intent of the law was to discour-
age field buying of tobacco and contains
some severe penalties for failure to
comply with provisions of the contract.
The law has never been satisfactory to
the farmnr who does not fancy the
idea of not being permitted to sell his
tobacco whenever he chooses, or with
the buyers who always felt there were
teeth in the law and did not care to
take chances on being subjected to the
penalties. So everybody has been look
ing forward to time when the courts
would determine its ccnstitutionality.
The opportunity came in 1915 in the
case brought by Erick Strander vs..
Mcintosh Bros. By stipulation but two
questions were submitted to the circuit
court: 1. Whether this special contract
was within the terms of the statute;
2. If so, whether such statute was
within the constitutional exercise of
legislative power. On trial Judge
Grimm held that the contract was not
within the terms of the statute and not
subject to its provisions for double
damages and further that the law in
question violates constitutional guar
tee and cannot be sustained. There
fore he directed judgment dismissing
the action.
So when appeal was taken to the
supreme court, it was believed the fate
of this unpopular statute would be
sealed, but the decision quoted below
shows that only one eye has been
knocked out of the Paul law. The
court might with seeming propriety
have gone a step further and complet-
ed the job, but we understand the court
never goes any further on constitu-
tionaI matters than is absolutely neces-
sary in the question involved.
Eschweiler, i've are of the opin-
ion that this judgment should be af-
firmed upon one of the conclusions
reached by the trial court, namely,
that the contract in this case is not
within the perview of Sec. 167O-n Stats.
Whether this statute be considered a
penal or. remedial one, upon which
point we express no opinion, in either
event it would from its nature require
a strict construction when made the
basis of claim for such damages as is
made by the plaintiff herein and his
right to such a remedy as he here asks
should be clear.
Upon the stipulation and record here
in we must necessarily exclude from
consideration any extrinsic facts or CIR
cumstances surrounding the making of
this contract or any suggested reasons
why the same was not carried out, and
the only light in which this contract
can be viewed is the light that shines
forth from the document itself.
Upon the face of this contract we
are constrained to hold that it is not
such crop purchase as is the subject
matter of the law under consideration.
1t appears to be contract for certain
definite grades or qualities out of an
entire crop. This is evident from the
fact that the contract proves that if,
in that which shall be subsequently
rendered or offered for delivery by the
seller to the purchaser, there shall be
included damaged tobacco the amount
of damage is to be decided upon by
mutual agreement. No specific price
is fixed by this contract for such dam
aged tobacco and we are therefore
bound to assume that the parties rec
ognized that there was something else
to an entire crop of tobacco than the
two grades or qualities upon which the
definite prices were fixed and agreed to
be paid. That parties have the right
to bargain for the purchase and sale
of parts of an entire crop instead of
the whole cannot well be questioned
and if they content themselves with
such contract the court cannot we'll
make it anything else.
They appear to have agreed to sell
and purchase certain definitely describ-
ed separate. and apparently indepen-
dent, grades or qualities of tobac 20
each at specified and different price
out of a certain crop raised by the
seller on his four acres. The term crop
is used in the contract. 1t is, however,
a general term and must, so far as this
contract is concerned, be controlled by
the definitely described grades at spec
flied prices.
The contract further expressly pro-
vides for it's cancellation in case the
parties cannot agree as to the amount
of damage that shall arise by such sub
sequently ascertained condition. Or
dinarily parties certainly have the same
right to agree that upon certain copdi-
tions subsequently arising their con-
tractual relationship shall cease as we'll
as they have the right to agree upon
the terms and conditions which shall
bind them.
This affirmance of the judgment of
the court below is solely upon the
grounds herein indicated and is ex-
pressly without any determination or
intimation upon the other question
raised and suggested in this case and
also passed upon in the court below as
to whether or not this Sec. 1670-n can
be upheld as lawful exercise of legis-
lative law.
By the Court. Judgment affirmed.