Court Opinion

ID: 3621331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:03:02.001317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:07:36.214161
License: Public Domain

[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 78 
If the contract was one of bailment, and if by a proper construction of it the defendants were entitled to the surplus flour, I think the burthen would have rested on them of showing that the article in question was such surplus, after the plaintiffs had established that it was the produce of their wheat; so that taking the most favorable view for the defendants, there was no error in point of law in this branch of the decision at the circuit, which would entitle them to except, and the only question for our decision is, whether the contract and the delivery under it, amounted to a sale or a bailment of the wheat?
The defendants refer us to that part of the contract which binds them to deliver a barrel of superfine flour and to guarantee its inspection, for every 4¼ bushels of wheat, which it is alledged, if the plaintiffs' contruction is to prevail, is not only an unreasonable and hard contract for the defendants, but is altogether inconsistent with the notion of a bailment; for it is asked, if it were not a sale, why should the defendants guaranty that the flour should bear inspection, or why should they agree for a certain quantity of wheat to deliver a barrel of flour? It *Page 79 
may be remarked in answer to this, that the defendants being experienced millers must be deemed to have contracted with a knowledge of the quantity of wheat required to yield a barrel of flour; and as the plaintiffs were obliged by the contract to deliver good merchantable wheat, it seems but reasonable that the defendants should have been required so to manufacture it, as that the flour would bear inspection: that these provisions must be viewed in the connection in which they stand, and receive a construction which shall make them harmonize with the whole expression of the contract between the parties; and that taking the whole agreement into view, they seem to have been inserted at the suggestion of the plaintiffs, for the purpose in part, at least, of causing a skilful and prudent manufacture of the wheat into flour; and even if they were employed to define the quantity of flour to be returned, they would not overbear the other provisions of the agreement, which import very clearly an understanding between the parties that the identical wheat which was delivered by the plaintiffs, should be manufactured into flour for their benefit; that they were to pay for the work a stipulated price in money, and to receive the manufactured article, together with the offals or feed, which should come from the wheat. The language of the agreement will hardly bear a different construction. The plaintiffs by its terms were to deliver wheat to be manufactured into flour, which Willisagreed to do — i.e. he agreed to manufacture the wheat so to be delivered into flour. But this provision would be entirely out of place in an exchange of wheat for flour. The plaintiffs were to furnish the barrels in which it was to be packed; thus providing every material for the completion of the work, and leaving nothing for Willis to do but to perform the proper labor of a manufacturer. The plaintiffs were moreover to have all the offals or feed, c.; not such a quantity of offals as would proceed from a like quantity of other wheat, but the offals or feed — i.e. such as should come of grinding the very wheat delivered to the miller, who was also to store the feed until the plaintiffs could sell it. And in case Willis performed on his part, i.e. in case he manufactured the wheat so *Page 80 
delivered into flour, with the requisite skill and prudence, the plaintiffs were to pay him at the rate of 16 cents, or in a certain contingency 18 cents per barrel, as a compensation for the labor of manufacture. Proper effect cannot be given to these provisions of the agreement, without treating it as a contract by the defendants to manufacture the plaintiffs' wheat into flour, to deliver to them the specific proceeds, at least to the extent mentioned in the contract, and to receive in satisfaction for the work the stipulated price per barrel. Contracts of this sort which have received a different construction will be found to have differed very materially from the present in their terms, as will be seen by a brief reference to the leading cases.
In Buffum v. Merry, (3 Mason's Rep. 478,) the plaintiff owned 2900 pounds of cotton yarn, and agreed to let one Hutchinson take it at the price of 65 cents per pound, and he was to pay the plaintiff the amount in plaids, at 15 cents per yard. H. was to use the plaintiff's yarn in making the warp of the plaids, and to use for filling, other yarn of as good a quality. Under this contract the yarn was delivered to H., who failed without having manufactured it into plaids, and assigned it with other property for the benefit of his creditors. The question was whether the property in the yarn passed to H. by the delivery; and Story, J. said that it did: holding that it was not a contract whereby the specific yarn was to be manufactured into cloth, wholly for the plaintiff's account and at his expense, and nothing but his yarn was to be used for the purpose. That in such a case the property might not have changed; but here the cloth was to be made of other yarn as well as the plaintiff's. The whole cloth when made was not to be delivered to him, but so much only as at 15 cents per yard would pay for the plaintiff's yarn at 65 cents per pound. That this was a sale of the yarn at a specified price to be paid for in plaids at a specified price. (See also Story on Bailments, sec. 283; Jones on Bailments,p. 102.)
In Ewing v. French, (1 Blackford's (Ind.) Rep. 353,) the plaintiff delivered a quantity of wheat to the defendants at their mill to be exchanged for flour. The wheat was thrown *Page 81 
by the defendants into their common stock, and the mill was subsequently destroyed by fire. The court held this to be a contract of exchange, or a sale of the wheat to be paid for in flour; that from the moment the defendants received the wheat they became liable for the flour; that the wheat itself was not to be returned, nor the identical flour manufactured from it. And this was very well, for the contract was by its express terms, one of exchange.
In Smith v. Clark, (21 Wend. 83,) one Hubbard owned a flouring mill, and the plaintiffs agreed with him to deliver wheat at his mill, and he agreed that for every four bushels and 55 pounds of wheat which should be received, he would deliver the plaintiffs one barrel of superfine flour, warranted to bear inspection. Here was nothing which imported a delivery of wheat for the purpose of being manufactured, nor any agreement to make it into flour and to receive a compensation for so doing, at a certain price per barrel; and it is obvious that Hubbard might have delivered any flour of the quality stipulated for, in satisfaction of the contract. Hence it was held that the delivery of the wheat under this agreement amounted to an exchange of the wheat for flour, and that Hubbard on receiving the wheat became indebted to the plaintiffs.
In Norton v. Woodruff, (2 Comst. 153,) the defendant agreed to "take" wheat and to "give" them one barrel of superfine flour for every four bushels and thirty-six pounds of wheat; but here also there was the absence of a delivery for the purpose of being manufactured, no compensation was agreed to be given to the miller for his work, there was nothing about offals, and nothing about the wheat-owner's furnishing barrels in which to pack the flour. On the contrary, the miller in this case was to furnish the barrels. This court gave proper effect to the language of this contract by holding, that the miller by agreeing to take wheat and give flour in return, had bargained for an exchange of wheat for flour; that any flour of the quality described in the contract would have answered its requirements, and that the property of the wheat passed upon its delivery. *Page 82 
But in the case under review, Willis contracted to manufacture the wheat delivered, and to receive compensation for his labor. The flour, by which was intended the produce of the manufacture, was to be delivered to the plaintiffs in their own barrels, and the offals were to be kept in store as their property. These features give a character to this contract so materially different from that which is borne by the agreements which have received a judicial construction in the cases referred to, that with the fullest concurrence in the justice of those decisions, it may be held that the defendants were bailees and not purchasers of the plaintiff's wheat, and bound to restore its proceeds to them. I am, therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the supreme court ought to be affirmed.