Court Opinion

ID: 9523301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:38:45.611815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:52.166011
License: Public Domain

Additional Opinion on Petition rok Rehearing In their petition for rehearing, counsel for appellee state that they are in accord with our statement that the gist of this case is whether defendant, in sending its letter of July 2,1953, to members of P.M.A. sought to induce those members to breach their contracts with the plaintiff. Counsel then state, and we agree, that defendant’s conduct could not possibly be deemed wrongful prior to defendant’s acquiring knowledge of the existence of the relationship which existed between plaintiff and its members. Therefore the remaining decisive question is the time defendant knew of the relationship which existed between the plaintiff and its producer-members. Defendant insists that it did not have this knowledge until it received the letter of plaintiff of February 24, 1954, and the accompanying parcel containing the original contracts of P.M.A. and its producer-members. From the pleadings and stipulated facts, the conclusion, however, is inescapable that defendant had this knowledge on and prior to July 2, 1953. The amended complaint alleged that on or about July 25, 1952, the plaintiff informed defendant by letter of the effective date of its marketing agreement with R. M. Funston and thirty-eight other dairy farmers, giving to defendant the contract number and can number. The answer of the defendant states: “It (defendant) admits that it received a letter from plaintiff dated July 25, 1952, a copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit 1 and by this reference made a part hereof. ... It admits that it has received other letters from plaintiff similar in form to said exhibit I. . . . It admits that all dairy farmers with respect to whom plaintiff has addressed correspondence to defendant similar in form to said exhibit 1, have, both prior and subsequent to such correspondence, delivered grade B milk to defendant at its said establishment at Stockton, Illinois, and that plaintiff by such correspondence has purported to inform defendant that such deliveries were made to defendant pursuant to the authorization and direction of plaintiff.” The letter of July 25,1952, referred to in .the pleadings, stipulation, and opinion, is as follows: “Kraft Foods Company July 25, 1952 505 N. Sacramento Blvd. Delivery Point Chicago 12, Illinois Stockton, Ill. Grade B Gentleman: Attention C. W. Krefft The following members of Pure Milk Association are authorized to deliver milk to you: Contract Cans Name and Address Effective Number Number of Member Date (Please note attached list) Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Pure Milk Association Kraft Foods Company — -Stockton Plant — Grade ‘B’ 505 N. Sacramento Blvd., Chicago 12, Illinois — All Producers Listed — Effective 8-1-52 Name and Address Contract No. Can No. Elmer Carroll 42808 #14 R#l, Elizabeth, Illinois Leland Pierce, Sr., and 42831 #25 Leland Pierce, Jr. R#3, Stockton, Illinois (Then follows the name, address, contract number and can number of 37 other persons)” Upon the hearing, it was stipulated that on or about the effective dates of a contract between plaintiff and its producer-member the plaintiff mailed to defendant and defendant received a letter similar to its letter of July 25, 1952. In its letter of June 29, 1953, set forth in the opinion, plaintiff furnished defendant with the names and addresses of its members and a copy of its contract with those members. If appellee had no knowledge of the provisions of the contract of P.M.A. and its producer-members why did it refuse to deduct and remit to P.M.A. the 3‡ per cwt. checkoff to plaintiff as therein provided? . By its answer to the amended complaint, defendant admitted that plaintiff requested it to withhold this checkoff, admitted receiving a registered letter dated June 29, 1953, from P.M.A., requesting that this be done and made a copy of that letter a part of its answer. It is apparent that defendant had knowledge of the provisions of P.M.A.’s contracts with their producing-members prior to the time it wrote its letter of July 2, 1953. The opinion is slightly modified, and, as modified, the petition for rehearing will be denied. Rehearing denied.