Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc. v. Hope Rice Mill

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc. v. Hope Rice Mill

189 So. 2d 73, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 4886

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1966

DocketNo. 1720

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 So. 2d 73 (Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc. v. Hope Rice Mill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc. v. Hope Rice Mill, 189 So. 2d 73, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 4886 (La. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

TATE, Judge.

This is a suit by Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc., the holder of two negotiable warehouse receipts, against Hope Rice Mill, the partnership-warehouseman who had issued the receipts, for the value of certain rices covered by said receipts, but which rices were not delivered by the warehouseman. (Hope’s partners are impleaded as code-fendants.) This suit was consolidated for trial with Orange Rice Milling Company v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 64; Edmundson-Duhe Rice Mill v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 70; and Farmers Rice Milling Company, Inc. v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 74, all of which were decided this date.

The trial court, after allowing a deduction of one (1%) percent for reasonable shrinkage in weight, rendered judgment in favor of Estherwood against defendants for the value of the rice which Hope was unable to deliver. Defendants have appealed, contending that the trial court was in error in allowing any recovery. Estherwood has answered the appeal, contending that the trial court was in error in allowing the one (1%) percent deduction.

The evidence in the instant case reveals that there was a difference of 113,-345 pounds between the weight of the rices stated on the negotiable warehouse receipts and the weight of the rices actually delivered. For the reasons stated by us in Orange Rice Milling Company v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 64, we have determined that the warehouseman, Hope Rice Mill, is responsible to plaintiff for this shortage. Likewise, for the reasons there stated, we [74]*74find no error in the trial court’s deducting from the proven weight shortage an allowance of one (1%) percent of the total rice stored per the warehouse receipts, as being a reasonable shrinkage in weight resulting from natural causes unrelated to any negligence on the part of the defendants.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed at the cost of the defendants-appellants, Hope and its partners.

Affirmed.

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

TATE, Judge.

This is a suit by Estherwood Rice Mill, Inc., the holder of two negotiable warehouse receipts, against Hope Rice Mill, the partnership-warehouseman who had issued the receipts, for the value of certain rices covered by said receipts, but which rices were not delivered by the warehouseman. (Hope’s partners are impleaded as code-fendants.) This suit was consolidated for trial with Orange Rice Milling Company v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 64; Edmundson-Duhe Rice Mill v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 70; and Farmers Rice Milling Company, Inc. v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 74, all of which were decided this date.

The trial court, after allowing a deduction of one (1%) percent for reasonable shrinkage in weight, rendered judgment in favor of Estherwood against defendants for the value of the rice which Hope was unable to deliver. Defendants have appealed, contending that the trial court was in error in allowing any recovery. Estherwood has answered the appeal, contending that the trial court was in error in allowing the one (1%) percent deduction.

The evidence in the instant case reveals that there was a difference of 113,-345 pounds between the weight of the rices stated on the negotiable warehouse receipts and the weight of the rices actually delivered. For the reasons stated by us in Orange Rice Milling Company v. Hope Rice Mill, La.App., 189 So.2d 64, we have determined that the warehouseman, Hope Rice Mill, is responsible to plaintiff for this shortage. Likewise, for the reasons there stated, we [74]*74find no error in the trial court’s deducting from the proven weight shortage an allowance of one (1%) percent of the total rice stored per the warehouse receipts, as being a reasonable shrinkage in weight resulting from natural causes unrelated to any negligence on the part of the defendants.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed at the cost of the defendants-appellants, Hope and its partners.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 2d 73, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 4886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estherwood-rice-mill-inc-v-hope-rice-mill-lactapp-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack