Haarparinne v. Butter Hill Fruit Growers Ass'n

119 A. 116, 122 Me. 138, 1922 Me. LEXIS 188
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 27, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 119 A. 116 (Haarparinne v. Butter Hill Fruit Growers Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haarparinne v. Butter Hill Fruit Growers Ass'n, 119 A. 116, 122 Me. 138, 1922 Me. LEXIS 188 (Me. 1922).

Opinion

Spear, J.

The action in 'this case is assumpsit for the price of 150 barrels of apples at $5.50 per barrel, with á money count. The [139]*139plea was the general issue. The relation of the plaintiff and defendant does not grow out of an alleged agreement of sale, acceptance and delivery, but arises from the voluntary membership of the plaintiff, as a stockholder, in the defendant corporation, as appears from the following certificate of stock and the certificate of incorporation of the Association:

“This certifies that A. Haarparinne is the owner of one share of the Capital Stock of the Butter Hill Fruit Growers Association.”

The certificate of incorporation, so far as pertinent, omitting the names of members, is as follows: “Section 1, Name. This association shall be known as the Butter Hill Fruit Growers Association incorporated under the laws of the State of Maine. Its place of business shall be in Livermore, Maine. Section 2, Objects. The objects of this Association shall be to encourage better and more economical methods of production; to secure better results in grading, packing, marketing and advertising our products, to buy supplies in a cooperative way; to rent, buy, build, own, sell and control such buildings and other real and personal property as may be needed in the business; to cultivate the cooperative spirit in the community, and perform any other work which may tend to the betterment of the members and the uplift of the neighborhood. Section 3. Membership. Any bona fide fruit grower in Livermore, tributary to the shipping point of this Association, who shall sign these rules, may become a member of this Association by contributing his share or shares of capital stock or other regular investment.”

It would hardly seem necessary to go further in the discussion of this case than the foregoing recital of its objects. It is so manifestly a corporation for the common purpose of enabling the people of a community to form a cooperative and mutual agency for handling and marketing their apples and other products, that interpretation can add but little to what is so clearly expressed.

We are oT the opinion, moreover, that every section and item of the certificate of incorporation is expressed, in substance and form, in phraseology calculated to carry on the entire business of the corporation in harmony with the scheme expressed in the objects and purposes of the organization.

It is obvious that the plaintiff became a member in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 and thereby subject to all the obligations and entitled to all the privileges and advantages of such membership.

[140]*140Referring to other pertinent sections and paragraphs, we come first to Section 8, which provides for grading and inspecting, and specifies what is required of members to enable the Association to accomplish these purposes. Item 1 reads as follows:

“All goods produced for sale by the members shall be delivered to the Association for grading, packing, and shipment.” It will be observed that this item. requires delivery to the Association for particular specified purposes in no way suggesting the sale. Section 9 describes the duties and rights of members. Items 1, 2 and 3 read as follows:
Item 1, “A member shall have the right to give away, or retain for his own use such of his fruit as he may wish, but he shall not make sale of any fruit or other products promised to the Association, to any outside parties, except any product not accepted by the Association.”
Item 2, “In case any member is offered a price in excess of the price then obtainable by the Association, said member shall turn said bid over to the Association for filling from said member’s goods.”
Item 3, “All members shall contract their entire crop of fruit to the Board of Directors each year, whenever in the judgment of the Board such contracts would prove of benefit to the Association.”

These items, read together, clearly define, and were undoubtedly conceived to establish, a voluntary agreement whereby the members of the Association should individually make delivery of their apples for marketing with a view to the corporate as well as individual benefit.

The plaintiff, however, puts great stress upon the effect of Item 1, inasmuch as, as he contends, he could not sell his fruit to any ‘ ‘Outside parties.” But this was an arrangement to which he consented, and was an essential and necessary part of the scheme of accomplishing the chief purpose for the Association. Without that provision, the business of the enterprise would have been as uncertain and vacillating as the moods and whims of its members. A reference will show that Item 2 was intended to supplement Item 1 as to price, by giving every member the advantage of an offer of a larger price than the Association was getting. By Item 2 it will be seen the member simply transfers the “bid over,” for filling his order, not for buying his goods. Moreover, the plaintiff treats Item 1 of Section 9 as if it compelled him and of course every other member as a matter of [141]*141contract to deliver his apples to the Association, and as a legal restraint upon him from selling them, himself, to “outside parties.” But such is not the interpretation. A member under Item 1 is under no legal obligation, not to sell his apples to an “outside party.” He is in honor bound, however, not to do it. Yet if he does, no penalty whatever attaches except that of conscious wrong and the loss of his rights as a member of the Association. It is clearly apparent, however, that if the plaintiff could sell to “outside parties” every member could do the same, and that would mean the end of the Association as an effective agency. Hence, the whole scheme of the Corporation depends upon not a legal but an honorable observance of that item. We are unable to discern any interpretation of Section 9, that points to the Association as a purchaser, or a member thereof as a vender thereto.

Section 10 prescribed the duties and powers of the manager, which so far as pertinent to the present discussion, read as follows:

“He shall have charge of the grading, packing and inspection of all the Association products and shall have control of the brands and labels, and their use on the Association packages, in accordance with the rules of the Association. He shall enter into contract for the sale of the Association goods. He shall have entire charge of the marketing of all Association goods, subject only to the action of the Board of Directors, and the rules and regulations of the Association.”
Among other things the specification of his duties requires that: “He shall enter into contracts for the sale of the Association goods. He shall have entire charge of the marketing of all of the Association goods.” What were the Association goods? Undoubtedly in the present case the apples that each member of the Association should turn over to the Association for grading, inspection and sale, in accordance with the common purpose of the Corporation. Nothing in this section points to a purchase and a sale by a member.

Section 13 relates to packing and emphatically points to individual ownership. It provides: “The cost of packing each individual’s fruit shall be deducted from the receipts of the sale of that fruit.” This method of doing business is entirely incompatible with the theory of the sale by the member to the Association.

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

Related

In Re Taxes, Aiea Dairy, Ltd.
380 P.2d 156 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1963)
Fjeldahl v. Homer Co-op. Ass'n
11 Alaska 112 (D. Alaska, 1946)
Irvine Co. v. McColgan
157 P.2d 847 (California Supreme Court, 1945)
Department of Treasury v. Ice Service, Inc.
41 N.E.2d 201 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1942)
Texas Certified Cottonseed Breeders Ass'n v. Aldridge
61 S.W.2d 79 (Texas Supreme Court, 1933)
Spencer Co-operative Live Stock Shipping Ass'n v. Schultz
245 N.W. 99 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1932)
City of Owensboro v. Dark Tobacco Growers' Ass'n
300 S.W. 350 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)
Staple Cotton Co-Op. Ass'n v. Borodofsky
108 So. 802 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926)
Kansas Wheat Growers Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners
241 P. 466 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A. 116, 122 Me. 138, 1922 Me. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haarparinne-v-butter-hill-fruit-growers-assn-me-1922.