Court Opinion

ID: 9682647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:15:12.394998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.573920
License: Public Domain

HAWTHORNE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority decision in this case for all the reasons set out in my decision on original hearing.
Under the written contract Martin was supposed to deliver this material at designated points at the seller’s expense, the designated points being Berwick, Plaque-mine and White Castle. As I view the matter the measurements were made at St. Francisville solely because the seller asked for financial aid in the form of advances on his contract, which he received as a favor, and the buyer kept a checker at St. Francisville so that it would have a general idea of the correctness of the invoices which it was paying. Rough measurements were made at St. Francisville with *659the distinct understanding that final accurate measurements were to be made by the .Department of Highways, to which the materials were delivered by James, and also with the ■ understanding that the seller, Martin, would re-invoice James for any additional yardage, or replace any shortage that developed, Before all of the materials had been delivered by Martin under these contracts, however, Martin' himself asked James to free him from his contract because he was having difficulty in obtaining material that was satisfactory to the Highway Department, and James consented.
Under the contract James was bound to pay only for the amount of material delivered in accordance with the terms of the contract. Why should James measure and accept material at the point of origin and assume the risk of loading and unloading and a long water haul when the contract itself specified that Martin was to deliver the materials to Berwick, Plaquemine and White Castle at Martin’s expense? Martin knew that the materials belonged to him until delivered in accordance with the terms of the agreement because he insured himself against the risk of losing these materials between St. Francisville and the unloading sites. In fact -this record shows that Martin actually lost one thousand yards of creek run gravel when a tugboat ■•hit one of his barges on the Atchafalaya River en route to an unloading site, and at -the -trial of this case Martin admitted .that the insurance company paid him for the lost gravel. By insuring and collecting for these materials Martin showed that he himself interpreted the contract to mean that the materials were at his risk until delivered to the sites called for in the contract.
Rehearing denied; McCALEB, J., HAWTHORNE, J., and HAMLIN, J., dissenting.