Opinion ID: 1411203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: status of simplot eastern (identity of respondent)

Text: (a) Mr. Fullmer testified that he was vice-president and manager of Simplot Eastern Idaho Produce Co., a separate and distinct entity from J.R. Simplot Company, and at no time in dealing with this transaction was he an employee or agent for J.R. Simplot Company. The crop in question was bought entirely for the account of Simplot Eastern, whose business was primarily that of a pack out company. If any work was done for J.R. Simplot Company, Simplot Eastern would get paid for these services. On cross-examination, Fullmer testified that the sign on top of his office building and at the Rockford cellar still read J.R. Simplot Co. This was because these signs were never changed after 1958 when Simplot Eastern was formed. However, Fullmer denied that one central bookkeeping and auditing system was maintained for both companies, but rather that each was kept separate. (b) Documentary Evidence. The documentary evidence establishes that Simplot Eastern and J.R. Simplot Company are separate entities, with the latter now being a Nevada Corporation. Mr. J.R. Simplot is the president of both corporations and Lloyd Haight is an officer of the Simplot Company, an incorporator of Simplot Eastern, and general counsel for both corporations. Defendant's Exhibit D is an interoffice communication from Mr. Haight to Fullmer on J.R. Simplot Company stationery regarding Simplot Eastern's transaction with Schwendiman and Rodgers. Fullmer replied to this interoffice communication on Simplot Eastern stationery, signing for Simplot Eastern Idaho Produce. Finally, Fullmer admitted that some of the records contained in Exhibit 12, i.e., those labeled Simplot Produce Company, were written on old forms of the J.R. Simplot Company. However, the remainder of the records are marked Simplot Eastern Idaho Produce, Inc., as well as all checks paid to Rodgers, the bank and Schwendiman. Upon this evidence the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact: (1) That Schwendiman and Rodgers agreed to sell the potato crop to Simplot Eastern with the understanding of all concerned that Simplot Eastern would advance them certain monies to complete harvesting and that Simplot Eastern was to take possession of said crop, sort, grade and market it in an orderly manner and first reimburse itself out of the proceeds thereof and then apply the balance, if any, to the Bank's mortgage and then to Schwendiman and Rodgers. (2) That continuous possession and control of the crop remained with Simplot Eastern until the last of the potatoes were marketed on or about February 2, 1962. (3) That the gross weight of potatoes remaining in storage as of January 3, 1962 was 6,251.80 hundred-weight. (4) That pursuant to said agreement Simplot Eastern did reimburse itself $2,410.49 from the sale of these remaining potatoes (January 3) which was still owing from the original advancement of monies. (5) That the ($500) bin rental was a recognized custom of the trade, even though there was an immediate transfer of title to the buyer company, for the reason that the buyer was still protecting the interests of the seller of the crop in and to the final proceeds to be derived therefrom. (6) That the plaintiff corporation had full knowledge of such actual control and possession of the crop by Simplot Eastern when it took Rodgers' crop mortgage, and that it did not make inquiry as to the title to said crop other than with Rodgers. (7) That neither the Bank nor Simplot Eastern had actual notice or knowledge of the purported second mortgage. (8) That the total proceeds from the marketing of said crop amounted to $9,269.37. (9) There being insufficient funds to pay the bank on its first mortgage, Schwendiman was later called upon to and did discharge this obligation sometime later in 1962. (10) That Simplot Eastern and J.R. Simplot Company are wholly separate and distinct corporations and that Fullmer was acting solely for Simplot Eastern. The court concluded that title to the crop passed simultaneously with the sale agreement to Simplot Eastern in August or September, 1961, and such passage of title was accompanied by actual and continuous change of possession from seller to buyer. The court further concluded that the facts so found were also sufficient to support a valid pledge to Simplot Eastern. Most importantly, the trial court concluded that plaintiff [appellant] has wholly failed to show that it has any right, claim, demand or cause of action against J.R. Simplot Company or that said defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in any sum or amount or at all. The court then dismissed as against J.R. Simplot Company, but rendered judgment against the defendants Rodgers. From such order of dismissal appellant has perfected this appeal listing 25 assignments of error. Only one of these (No. 19) need be discussed in this opinion. In this assignment appellant contends the court erred in conclusion number I that plaintiff (appellant) did not have any cause of action against defendant J.R. Simplot Company and in conclusion number V granting such defendant its costs. This contention is not meritorious. The documentary and oral evidence overwhelmingly supports the findings and conclusions to which objection has been taken. J.R. Simplot Company and Simplot Eastern Idaho Produce, Inc. are, and during all times involved in this cause have been, separate and distinct legal entities. The evidence relied upon by appellant: 1. J.R. Simplot Co. sign on warehouse where potatoes were stored and on office building used by Fullmer; 2. the interoffice communication from Haight to Fullmer on J.R. Simplot Co. stationery; and 3. the interlocking directors and officers of the two corporations is insufficient to establish any responsibility on the part of J.R. Simplot Company for the transactions involved in this cause. The trial court so found and concluded and these findings and conclusions are amply supported by competent and substantial evidence. They will not be disturbed on appeal. I.C. § 13-219 and numerous cases annotated thereunder; Rule 52(a), I.R.C.P.; Saviers v. Saviers, 92 Idaho 117, 438 P.2d 268 (1968); Meredith v. Meredith, 91 Idaho 898, 434 P.2d 116, 119 (1967); Clements v. Clements, 91 Idaho 732, 430 P.2d 98; Parks v. Parks, 91 Idaho 420, 422 P.2d 618 (1967); Olsen v. Hawkins, 90 Idaho 28, 408 P.2d 462 (1965). This disposes of the appeal and makes unnecessary any ruling upon or discussion of the other 24 assignments of error. Judgment and order affirmed. Costs to respondent. SMITH, C.J., and TAYLOR, McQUADE and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.