Jones v. California Growers & Shippers, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Jones v. California Growers & Shippers, Inc.

190 P. 172, 182 Cal. 777, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 573

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1920

DocketL. A. No. 6048.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 190 P. 172 (Jones v. California Growers & Shippers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. California Growers & Shippers, Inc., 190 P. 172, 182 Cal. 777, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 573 (Cal. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, J.

—Plaintiff recovered judgment for two thousand six hundred dollars, being the balance of the purchase price of the entire crop of melons growing on his ranch, which was sold by him to the defendant for four thousand six hundred dollars, payable two thousand dollars cash, six hundred dollars June 25, 1918, and two thousand dollars July 1, 1918. Suit was brought June 26, 1918, for six hundred dollars. Payment of two thousand dollars having become due July 1, 1918, its nonpayment was set up by supplemental complaint filed July 10, 1918. The findings and judgment being in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals upon the judgment-roll alone, claiming that there is no specific allegation of delivery. Appellant attempts to distinguish this case from that of Christensen v. Cram, 156 Cal. 633, 635, [105 Pac. 950], in which on an appeal on the judgment-roll alone an allegation that the goods “sold” was held sufficient allegation of a completed sale, upon the ground that “in the case at bar the allegation is that the melons *778 were still growing; therefore a delivery in future must of necessity have been contemplated and the transaction was not a completely executed one.” [1] This position is not tenable. [2] Growing crops, as well as other personal property, are subject to absolute sale. (Hamilton v. Klinke (Cal. App.), [183 Pac. 674], See, also, Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co., 76 Cal. 212, [9 Am. St. Rep. 199, 18 Pac. 248]; Brown v. Anderson, 77 Cal. 236, [19 Pac. 487]; Wong Poo v. Southern Pac. Co., 41 Cal. App. 42, [181 Pac. 823] ; Johnson v. Dixon Farms Co., 29 Cal. App. 52, [155 Pac. 134, 136].) It was proper to set up the nonpayment of the. two thousand dollar note by way of supplemental complaint. The judgment of the trial court was correct. [3] In view of section 4%, article VI, of the constitution, the appeal is without semblance of merit, and a penalty for a frivolous appeal should be imposed. (Johnson v. Dixon Farms Co., siopra.)

Judgment affirmed, with penalty of one hundred dollars for frivolous appeal.

Lennon, J., and Sloane, J., concurred.

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

WILBUR, J.

—Plaintiff recovered judgment for two thousand six hundred dollars, being the balance of the purchase price of the entire crop of melons growing on his ranch, which was sold by him to the defendant for four thousand six hundred dollars, payable two thousand dollars cash, six hundred dollars June 25, 1918, and two thousand dollars July 1, 1918. Suit was brought June 26, 1918, for six hundred dollars. Payment of two thousand dollars having become due July 1, 1918, its nonpayment was set up by supplemental complaint filed July 10, 1918. The findings and judgment being in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals upon the judgment-roll alone, claiming that there is no specific allegation of delivery. Appellant attempts to distinguish this case from that of Christensen v. Cram, 156 Cal. 633, 635, [105 Pac. 950], in which on an appeal on the judgment-roll alone an allegation that the goods “sold” was held sufficient allegation of a completed sale, upon the ground that “in the case at bar the allegation is that the melons *778 were still growing; therefore a delivery in future must of necessity have been contemplated and the transaction was not a completely executed one.” [1] This position is not tenable. [2] Growing crops, as well as other personal property, are subject to absolute sale. (Hamilton v. Klinke (Cal. App.), [183 Pac. 674], See, also, Blackwood v. Cutting Packing Co., 76 Cal. 212, [9 Am. St. Rep. 199, 18 Pac. 248]; Brown v. Anderson, 77 Cal. 236, [19 Pac. 487]; Wong Poo v. Southern Pac. Co., 41 Cal. App. 42, [181 Pac. 823] ; Johnson v. Dixon Farms Co., 29 Cal. App. 52, [155 Pac. 134, 136].) It was proper to set up the nonpayment of the. two thousand dollar note by way of supplemental complaint. The judgment of the trial court was correct. [3] In view of section 4%, article VI, of the constitution, the appeal is without semblance of merit, and a penalty for a frivolous appeal should be imposed. (Johnson v. Dixon Farms Co., siopra.)

Judgment affirmed, with penalty of one hundred dollars for frivolous appeal.

Lennon, J., and Sloane, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 P. 172, 182 Cal. 777, 1920 Cal. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-california-growers-shippers-inc-cal-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack