Court Opinion

ID: 6900104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:54:04.779537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:08.139459
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Kehearing.
Mr. Chief Justice Bean
delivered the opinion.
There is no finding that it was specifically agreed that the defendant should have the option to pay for the wheat in controversy either in money or in kind. The court, however, in its findings sets out in detail the facts constituting the contract between the parties, from which it conclusively appears that neither the wheat delivered by the plaintiff and his assignors nor wheat from the common mass into which it was put was to be returned, but that the wheat was to be mixed with and become a part of the consumable stock of the mill, to be sold and disposed of by the defendant on its own account. Findings 4 and 5, in substance, are that at the time the wheat was delivered and received, it was the custom and usual course of business of the defendant, known to and acted upon by persons dealing with it, for it to mix all wheat delivered with that belonging to it in one common mass; the first refusal of such wheat being reserved by and conceded to the defendant; and thereafter, “at its own convenience and pleasure” and “without any written authority,” to “ship out any of such common mass * * or grind the same into flour and other mill products and the same to sell for the account and benefit of the defendant,” and, generally, in settlement of the claims arising out of such delivery to “pay by *24bank check or in money to the person delivering the wheat the market value at Salem, Or., on the day of settlement, of merchantable wheat of the quantity delivered, less warehouse charges,” although, in some instances, settlements were made by delivery of wheat equal in quality and quantity to that received. And finding 16 is that the wheat of the plaintiff and his assignors was delivered and received in pursuance of and according to such usage, custom and regular course of business, and that the parties “contracted with reference to and relied upon” the same. The custom and general course of business, therefore,' entered into and became a part of the contract between them, and the legal effect of the transaction is that the wheat was delivered and received under an agreement that it should be mixed with wheat belonging to the defendant and that the latter could, at its own convenience and pleasure, and' without any further authority from the persons delivering it, sell and dispose of the wheat or grind it into flour and other mill products and sell the same for its own account and benefit; and this, as we have endeavored to point out, constitutes a sale, and not a bailment. The fact that there was no special or distinct agreement that defendant should have the option to pay for the wheat either in money or in kind is unimportant. If, as the findings show, neither the wheat delivered nor wheat from the common mass with which it was mixed was to be returned to the farmers, but it was understood that it should become a part of the consumable stock of the mill to be sold and disposed of by the defendant as its own, it necessarily follows that the title passed. The defendant could' only discharge its obligation by paying for the wheat in some was, and whether it was required to make such payment in money, or had the option to pay in money or in kind, cannot change the legal effect of the transaction.
The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.
7. There is, however, a cross appeal by the plaintiff, which was not referred to in the opinion heretofore filed. The court below denied the plaintiff interest on the value of the wheat from the time of the demand in August, 1901, and from this ruling he appeals. As we have seen, this is an action on a contract to *25recover the value of the wheat delivered by the plaintiff and his assignors to the defendant. The value of such wheat became due and payable on demand according to the contract, and should, therefore, bear interest from that time: .B. & C. Comp. § 4595. The judgment will be modified accordingly, and the cause remanded to the court below, with directions to enter a judgment on the findings of fact in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the wheat delivered by him and his assignors to the defendant, together with legal interest thereon from the date of .the demand. Modified and Affirmed.
Rehearing Denied.