Home/Utah Supreme Court/Jungk v. Reed

Jungk v. Reed

33 P. 236, 9 Utah 49, 1893 Utah LEXIS 30
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 P. 236 (Jungk v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jungk v. Reed, 33 P. 236, 9 Utah 49, 1893 Utah LEXIS 30 (Utah 1893).

Opinion

ZaNE, C. J.:

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order overruling their motion for a new trial, and from a judgment against them on the verdict of the jury. The action was instituted upon three promissory notes, aggregating $7,000, made by defendants Reed and Cropper, and indorsed by the other defendants before the delivery to plaintiffs. The makers joined in one answer, and the indorsers joined in another. In the respective answers, failure of the consideration of the notes, and fraud in obtaining them, were alleged. It was also alleged that one Scott was a partner of both parties to the contracts hereinafter mentioned. It appears from the evidence in the record that the defendants agreed, in writing, to deliver to plaintiffs 5,000 sheep between the 1st and 10th days of July, 1890, at prices and places named, and that one Hap-good and defendant Duggins, at the instance of Reed' and Cropper, guaranteed its performance. It also appears that on the 19th day of February, 1890, Cropper and Reed made another contract in writing with the plaintiffs, for the delivery of 5,000 other sheep, for the price mentioned, at the same places, between the 10th of July and the 10th day of August next thereafter, and that the performance of this contract was guaranteed by defendants Holbrook and Duggins, and that the plaintiffs paid Reed and Cropper $10,000 on the two coil tracts. It appears further that a contract in writing was made between plaintiffs and one-Scott by which the former were to furnish the necessary funds for the execution of the contracts between them and. *56 Reed and Cropper, and to attend to and dispose of tlie sheep delivered on them; that Scott was to purchase and receive, and deliver them when sold; and that he was to receive one-third of the net profits. It also appears that the plaintiffs were not aware at the time the contracts were made that Scott was a partner of the defendants, and that the latter did not know of his interest with the plaintiffs, but did know that he was plaintiffs’ agent in the purchase of cattle; and it appears that Holbrook or Duggins Avere not aware at the time the contracts were guaranteed, or later, when they indorsed the notes, that Scott was the agent of the plaintiffs, or interested with them in the contracts. It does appear that Reed- and Cropper knew before they signed the notes that Scott was interested with plaintiffs in the contracts. It also appears that Scott was largely instrumental in securing the contracts, and that he represented to Reed and Cropper that he could buy the sheep to be delivered so that a profit could be realized, and that the defendants relied on him to make the purchases, the money being furnished by them. When Reed and Cropper wished to purchase they found the price of sheep higher than that for which they had contracted to sell. The defendants failed to deliver the sheep, and after-wards, in the latter part of July, 1890, the parties to the contract met to settle all matters in dispute with respect to the contracts and their breaches. It appears from’the evidence that the plaintiffs had paid to Reed and Cropper on their contracts §10,000, and that plaintiffs had made contracts with other parties to resell the sheep to be delivered 'to them, and were compelled, in consequence of the failure of Reed and Cropper, to buy other sheep at enhanced prices, entailing a loss to them of §6,000, which was afterwards, by agreement, reduced to $5,000, no part of which Scott paid, or undertook to pay. The plaintiffs’ ■ .claim against Cropper and Reed, as agreed upon, was $15,- *57 000. This was made up solely of the $10,000' above mentioned, and the $5,000 damages. It appears from the. evidence that Scott had no interest in this $15,000. The. account stood upon the settlement as follows:

Amounts due plaintiffs:

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

Related

Jungk v. Holbrook
49 P. 305 (Utah Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 P. 236, 9 Utah 49, 1893 Utah LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jungk-v-reed-utah-1893.