Armour Fertilizer Works v. Simpson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Armour Fertilizer Works v. Simpson

111 S.E. 341, 183 N.C. 251, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 252

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 5, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 341 (Armour Fertilizer Works v. Simpson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armour Fertilizer Works v. Simpson, 111 S.E. 341, 183 N.C. 251, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 252 (N.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

Tbe defendant admitted tbe execution of tbe note and introduced several witnesses who testified in bis behalf. Their evidence tended to show that tbe plaintiff’s agent was. acquainted with tbe quality of tbe defendant’s soil and informed of tbe purpose for which tbe guano was to be used, and that tbe plaintiff, through inadvertence in misplacing or losing tbe defendant’s order, delayed tbe shipment from March until May. We think tbe evidence should have been submitted to tbe jury. “Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, tbe damages which tbe other party ought to receive, in respect of such breach of contract, should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, that is, according to tbe usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in tbe contemplation of both parties, at tbe time they made tbe contract, as tbe probable result of tbe breach of it.” Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch., 353. If tbe purchaser of guano may show a breach of warranty as to its quality by.tbe effect of its use upon bis crops (Garter v. McGill, 168 N. C., 507), why may be not by proper evidence show tbe relative production of land with and without tbe fertilizer, or tbe usual effect under ordinary conditions of delayed planting when fertilizer is used? Evidence as to cultivation and tillage, tbe crop planted, tbe time of planting, tbe quality of tbe *253 soil, and tbe condition of tbe weather and tbe seasons may, under proper instructions, be considered by tbe jury. Garter v. McGill, supra; Tomlinson v. Morgan, 166 N. C., 560; Herring v. Armwood,, 130 N. C., 177; Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C., 49; Neal v. Hardware Co., 122 N. C., 105; Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N. C., 435. In material respects, Ober v. Katzenstein, 160 N. C., 440, is distinguishable from tbe case under consideration; but in that case it is said that when tbe vendor knows that tbe fertilizer is for tbe purchaser’s crops, and fails to deliver it, and tbe purchaser, because of tbe lateness of tbe season, is unable to purchase it elsewhere, be is entitled to damages. In tbe present case there was evidence that tbe plaintiff’s agent repeatedly told tbe defendant that tbe shipment would be made.

But in applying tbe decisions, as suggested in Carter v. McGill, 171 N. C., 775, all purely speculative and conjectural elements which have no foundation for proof should be excluded.

¥e cannot bold as an inference of law that tbe defendant waived bis alleged defense by tbe execution of tbe note; for, according to bis contention, tbe loss be claims subsequently to have suffered could not then be ascertained or estimated.

Tbe judgment of bis Honor in dismissing tbe defendant’s counterclaim is reversed, and this will be certified to tbe end that tbe court may determine tbe matters in controversy in accordance with law.,

Eeversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams, J.

Tbe defendant admitted tbe execution of tbe note and introduced several witnesses who testified in bis behalf. Their evidence tended to show that tbe plaintiff’s agent was. acquainted with tbe quality of tbe defendant’s soil and informed of tbe purpose for which tbe guano was to be used, and that tbe plaintiff, through inadvertence in misplacing or losing tbe defendant’s order, delayed tbe shipment from March until May. We think tbe evidence should have been submitted to tbe jury. “Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, tbe damages which tbe other party ought to receive, in respect of such breach of contract, should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, that is, according to tbe usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in tbe contemplation of both parties, at tbe time they made tbe contract, as tbe probable result of tbe breach of it.” Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch., 353. If tbe purchaser of guano may show a breach of warranty as to its quality by.tbe effect of its use upon bis crops (Garter v. McGill, 168 N. C., 507), why may be not by proper evidence show tbe relative production of land with and without tbe fertilizer, or tbe usual effect under ordinary conditions of delayed planting when fertilizer is used? Evidence as to cultivation and tillage, tbe crop planted, tbe time of planting, tbe quality of tbe *253 soil, and tbe condition of tbe weather and tbe seasons may, under proper instructions, be considered by tbe jury. Garter v. McGill, supra; Tomlinson v. Morgan, 166 N. C., 560; Herring v. Armwood,, 130 N. C., 177; Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C., 49; Neal v. Hardware Co., 122 N. C., 105; Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N. C., 435. In material respects, Ober v. Katzenstein, 160 N. C., 440, is distinguishable from tbe case under consideration; but in that case it is said that when tbe vendor knows that tbe fertilizer is for tbe purchaser’s crops, and fails to deliver it, and tbe purchaser, because of tbe lateness of tbe season, is unable to purchase it elsewhere, be is entitled to damages. In tbe present case there was evidence that tbe plaintiff’s agent repeatedly told tbe defendant that tbe shipment would be made.

But in applying tbe decisions, as suggested in Carter v. McGill, 171 N. C., 775, all purely speculative and conjectural elements which have no foundation for proof should be excluded.

¥e cannot bold as an inference of law that tbe defendant waived bis alleged defense by tbe execution of tbe note; for, according to bis contention, tbe loss be claims subsequently to have suffered could not then be ascertained or estimated.

Tbe judgment of bis Honor in dismissing tbe defendant’s counterclaim is reversed, and this will be certified to tbe end that tbe court may determine tbe matters in controversy in accordance with law.,

Eeversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 341, 183 N.C. 251, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armour-fertilizer-works-v-simpson-nc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack