Court Opinion

ID: 9790186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:48:38.112519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:27.216585
License: Public Domain

PETERS, P. J.
I concur. I agree that, if the question presented on this appeal presents a question of fact, the evidence supports the implied finding of the jury that title to these goods did not pass until they were delivered to the Belt Line Railroad. Indeed, in my opinion, a finding to the contrary would not be supported.
As the main opinion points out, appellant urges that the question of when title passed was a question of law and not of fact and should not have been submitted to the jury. There may be merit in this contention. It seems to be the rule that where the construction of a contract is involved, and there is either no extrinsic evidence or such evidence is uncontradicted, the question of construction is one of law. But it does not follow that submitting such a question to the jury was necessarily prejudicial to appellant. Under the circumstances above outlined, it is the duty of the appellate court to interpret the contract independent of the construction given to it by the trier of the fact, and to make a final determination of the controversy in accordance with the applicable principles of law. (Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 352 [131 P.2d 825].) If this question is one of law, and I am inclined to believe it is, it seems to be that the reasonable construction of the contract is that the parties intended title to pass only upon delivery to the Belt Line. Since this is in accord with the determination of the jury, it is obvious that whether the question is one of fact or law, since both reach the same result, no prejudice can have been suffered by treating it as a question of fact, even though it be a question of law.
Treating the question as one of law, it seems to me that the' only reasonable construction of the contract of the parties, and of the uncontradicted evidence, is that they intended title to pass only upon delivery to the Belt Line. The phrase “fob your tracks San Francisco” is admittedly ambiguous as to the exact time of passage of title. But there are other provisions of the contract which clearly disclose the intent of the parties. As pointed out in the main opinion, the waybills designated the Southern Pacific Company as consignee *767in care of a designated steamer at a designated dock, and both parties had in mind the possibility of delay and they expressly provided that the buyer was not obligated to accept delivery when such delivery was delayed by reason of any cause beyond the control of the buyer. There are the other provisions of the contract and other evidence, quoted at length in the main opinion, that lead to the same conclusion. There- is one other factor, not emphasized in the main opinion, that unequivocally shows the intent of the parties. The goods' were held by plaintiff at the Bayshore yards. If title had passed to the goods, the company was obligated to charge the respondent not only demurrage, but also for the transportation of the goods from the Bayshore yards to the Belt Line. The Southern Pacific Company has a regularly published tariff for such a haul. It is a most serious offense, under both state and federal law, not to charge a tariff required to be charged by law. Yet when the appellant shipped these goods from the Bayshore yard to the Belt Line they only attempted to charge demurrage, and did not attempt to charge for the transportation of the goods to the Belt Line. This demonstrates to a certainty that appellant itself interpreted the transaction as one not requiring the payment by respondent of the tariff from the Bayshore yards to the Belt Line. It follows that appellant itself interpreted the transaction as one where title did not pass until delivery to the Belt Line. Inasmuch as appellant has itself interpreted the phrase f.o.b. plaintiff’s tracks San Francisco as imposing upon it an obligation to transport the iron to the Belt Line without charge to respondent, and inasmuch as such obligation is only consistent with retention of title by appellant until that time, it seems obvious that appellant has, in effect, admitted that title did not pass until the goods reached the Belt Line. Such contemporaneous construction is entitled to great weight. (Johnston v. Landucci, 21 Cal.2d 63, 70 [130 P.2d 405, 148 A.L.R. 1355]; Keith v. Electrical Engineering Co., 136 Cal. 178 [68 P. 598].)
For these reasons I concur in the order affirming the judgment.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 13, 1944, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 12, 1944.