Wynne v. McCarthy

97 F.2d 964, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3905
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedMay 31, 1938
Docket1638, 1639
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 97 F.2d 964 (Wynne v. McCarthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wynne v. McCarthy, 97 F.2d 964, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3905 (10th Cir. 1938).

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

In July, 1924, H. C. Wynne was appointed liquidating agent of the Colonial Supply Company, hereinafter referred to as Colonial, a corporation engaged in the business of selling oil well supplies. It operated stores at Henryetta and Wewoka, Oklahoma. An inventory was made of the stock of oil well supplies in the stores as of August 4, 1924. Thereafter, Wynne made sales from the stock in the regular .course of trade.

In December, 1924, negotiations were entered into between Wynne and J. T. McCarthy, Jr., for the purchase by the latter of Colonial’s stock of oil well supplies. Wynne furnished McCarthy with a copy of the August 4, 1924, inventory, which fixed the value of the stock at approximately $34,000. Wynne estimated that the sales made subsequently to August 4, 1924, would amount to approximately $10,000, and so advised McCarthy. McCarthy examined the inventory and inspected the stock in the two stores. Thereafter, and on December 19, 1924, Colonial and McCarthy entered into the written contract set out in note 1 .

On April 13, 1925, Colonial assigned the contract to Wynne.

*966 A controversy arose between Wynne and McCarthy and in December, 1930,'Wynne instituted a suit against McCarthy in the district court of Tarrant County, Texas. Issues were joined and the matter referred to a special master who took the proofs and made findings, of fact and conclusions of law. McCarthy excepted to each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and demanded a jury trial of the issues of fact. Thereafter, and on March 16, 1933, Wynne instituted this suit against McCarthy in the district court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. It was duly removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

In his petition and an amendment thereto Wynne pleaded the contract of December 19, 1924, and alleged it was agreed in the contract: that “approximately 65.% of the stock shipped * * * should be sold * * * to the defendant and the balance of 35% thereof should be consigned to the defendant for sale by him for and on account and for the use and benefit of” Colonial; that the portion of the stock to be sold and the portion to be consigned should be designated and specifically agreed upon at the time the stock was removed from the cars at Wortham, Texas; that McCarthy should pay for the portion purchased 75 per cent, of the factory price; that the freight thereon should be paid by Colonial; that McCarthy should sell the consigned stock in the regular course of trade and beginning January 1, 1925, should furnish Colonial each month with a list of the supplies sold; that Colonial should render McCarthy invoices thereof at the prevailing factory price less 15 per cent; that McCarthy should pay each invoice within 60 days from its date; that Colonial should have the right to sell any part of the consigned stock, and that McCarthy should receive as a handling charge 5 per cent of the prevailing factory price of supplies sold by Colonial, or the actual handling costs in the event they should exceed such 5 per cent.

Wynne further alleged that on April 13, 1925, all of the rights of Colonial in the stock and in the contract were duly assigned and transferred to him; that pursuant to the contract Colonial’s entire stock of oil well supplies of the factory price and value of $35,436.95 was shipped to McCarthy and received by him; that it was mutually agreed between Colonial and McCarthy that the portion of the goods to be purchased by him and the portion to be held by him “on consignment for the account of” Colonial and sold for its account should not be selected and agreed upon as the goods were removed from the cars but “such selection and designation should be made at a later date to be agreed upon between the parties” ; that McCarthy neglected and failed to fix a time and place to make such selection though frequently requested so to do by Wynne; that McCarthy after receiving invoices for the goods delivered to him, ad *967 vised Wynne by letter dated April 9, 1925, the amount of goods was greatly in excess of the amount contemplated by the contract and he would not purchase and pay for 65 per cent of the total amount of goods received by him, but would purchase and pay for 65 per cent of the amount of goods contemplated by the contract and hold the remainder on consignment for sale for the account of Wynne in the manner provided in the contract with respect to the consigned goods; that such proposal was accepted by Wynne; that in September, 1925, McCarthy furnished Wynne with a list of goods received by him and designated a portion thereof as goods he would purchase and a portion thereof as goods he would hold on consignment, but in the letter transmitting the list McCarthy stated it was hurriedly made and a more complete list would be furnished in the future; that in December, 1925, McCarthy furnished Wynne with a list of the goods which he would hold on consignment and in January, 1926, furnished Wynne with a list of the goods which he would purchase, and stated the lists were subject to correction and approval by Wynne; that the lists furnished did not embrace all of the goods shipped to and received by McCarthy, and that the prices extended on the lists were less than the factory prices; that thereafter Wynne visited McCarthy’s store at Wort-ham, Texas, and inspected the stock and found a number of items on hand shipped by Colonial to McCarthy that were not included in either list furnished by McCarthy; that Wynne advised McCarthy of such omissions ; that McCarthy agreed to investigate and if there were omissions to make and furnish a new statement; that McCarthy failed and neglected to furnish a new statement; that in June, 1927, it was mutually agreed between Wynne and McCarthy that the factory prices should be determined by Bovaird Supply Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, that Wynne and McCarthy would abide by the prices thus fixed, that McCarthy would make a new selection of the goods which he would purchase on the basis of 75 per cent of Bovaird’s prices and that the remainder of the goods should be held on consignment; that Wynne caused the factory prices to be determined by the Bo-vaird Supply Company and furnished them to McCarthy and requested him to make selection of the goods to be purchased, but that McCarthy failed and refused so to do; that no selection of the goods purchased and the goods to be held on consignment was ever made by McCarthy and agreed to by Wynne; that title to no part of the goods passed to McCarthy; that he should be deemed to hold the entire stock on consignment for the use and benefit of Wynne; and that the amounts paid by McCarthy should be considered as credits on the consigned goods.

Wynne prayed for an accounting by McCarthy of the goods sold and those remaining unsold and for judgment for the amount which the accounting should show to be due.

In his answer and cross-complaint McCarthy set up pleas of laches and the statute of limitations.

He admitted that the goods were shipped pursuant to the contract and received by him.

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

Related

Jarchow v. Eder
1967 OK 179 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1967)
Ray B. Spurgin v. Fred Mixon, Jr.
246 F.2d 932 (Tenth Circuit, 1957)
Anderson-Thompson, Inc. v. Logan Grain Company
238 F.2d 598 (Tenth Circuit, 1956)
Fremon v. W. A. Sheaffer Pen Co.
111 F. Supp. 39 (S.D. Iowa, 1953)
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Gutowski
195 F.2d 637 (Sixth Circuit, 1952)
Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Russell
173 F.2d 620 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)
Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. Umbach
173 F.2d 532 (Seventh Circuit, 1949)
McCarthy v. Wynne
126 F.2d 620 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)
British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Buffington
116 F.2d 363 (Fifth Circuit, 1940)
Hupp Motor Car Corporation v. Wadsworth
113 F.2d 827 (Sixth Circuit, 1940)
Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. v. Klaxon Co.
30 F. Supp. 425 (D. Delaware, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 F.2d 964, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynne-v-mccarthy-ca10-1938.