Portland Seed Co. v. Clark

204 P. 146, 35 Idaho 44, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 4
Idaho Supreme Court·Decided February 9, 1922·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

RICE, C. J.

This is an action for damages for the conversion of clover seed. Appellant bases its title and right to possession upon the following contract:

“PORTLAND SEED COMPANY,
“Portland, Oregon.
“Date: Sept. 28, 1918.
“Bought of: Tom Clark.
“Postoffice: New Plymouth.
‘ ‘ Shipping Sta.: Emmett.
“Terms: $400. Balance F. O. B. Cars.
“Date of Shipt. - Via. -
“All conditions of sale must be expressed in writing. No verbal agreements recognized.
“This contract is for about two tons of red clover seed, or all he has on the 40-aere tract across the river. This seed is to be recleaned and in good seamless bags at 28^ per lb. And loaded when threshed and shipped to Portland.
“PORTLAND SEED COMPANY,
“By H. G-. Rogers.
“Price, terms and sale confirmed, and receipt of $400 dollars, part payment, on above is hereby acknowledged, “Date: Sept. 28.
“By TOM CLARK”

This was an executory contract of purchase. At its date the clover seed was growing in the field. The seller was required to harvest, thresh, reclean and sack the seed, load the same on ears and ship to Portland. Until all these requirements were complied with by the seller title would not pass. The trial court so found. (Brown v. Herrick, 34 Ida. 171, 200 Pac. 117; Mark P. Miller Milling Co. v. Butterfield-Elder Implement Co., 32 Ida. 265, 181 Pac. 703; Clinton Sheep Co. v. Ogee, 34 Ida. 22, 198 Pac. 675; Hamilton v. Gordon, 22 Or. 557, 30 Pac. 495; Kenney v. Grogan, 17 Cal. App. 527, 120 Pac. 433; Hughes v. Wiley, 36 Kan. 731, 14 Pac. 269; Williston on Sales, p. 4 04, sec. [47]*47280. See, also, Carlson v. Crescent etc. Box Mfg. Co., 20 Ida. 794, 120 Pac. 460.)

The appellant did not show title or right to possession of the clover seed, and cannot maintain this action. (Mark P. Miller Milling Co. v. Butterfield-Elder Implement Co., supra; Clinton Sheep Co. v. Ogee, supra.)

It is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents.

McCarthy and Dunn, JJ., concur.

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

Portland Seed Co. v. Clark, 204 P. 146, 35 Idaho 44, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 4 (Idaho 1922).

204 P. 146 (Portland Seed Co. v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carpenter v. TURRELL
227 P.3d 575 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010)
Martin v. Whiteley
405 P.2d 963 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1965)
National Produce Distributors, Inc. v. Miles & Meyer, Inc.
274 P.2d 831 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1954)
Black v. Darrah
233 P.2d 415 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1951)
Johnson v. Bennion
211 P.2d 148 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1949)
Bowman v. Adams
261 P. 679 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)