{ "id": 8656525, "name": "GASTON FARMERS WAREHOUSE COMPANY v. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Gaston Farmers Warehouse Co. v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.", "decision_date": "1918-11-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "509", "last_page": "511", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "176 N.C. 509" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "97 Ind., 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1328883 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/97/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Fla., 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Fla.", "case_ids": [ 1163973 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/fla/10/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ga., 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 251324 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/24/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273372 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 N. C., 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 N. C., 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271675 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 N. C., 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683208 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/64/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 N. C., 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Am. Rep., 270", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 398, "char_count": 6602, "ocr_confidence": 0.481, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.4528955729465496e-08, "percentile": 0.34269411073773026 }, "sha256": "a8d5a594044efa1d65e94d9caf2a619c3116f5b4e581689ad9017b5efd037bd7", "simhash": "1:b26f55c55c4cb775", "word_count": 1173 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:13.878101+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GASTON FARMERS WAREHOUSE COMPANY v. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wali\u00eder, J.\nAs the plaintiff was successful on the first two issues,, we cannot consider its exceptions as to them, for if'there was error it was not prejudiced thereby, and it frankly admits that if it is wrong as to the exception taken to the charge of the court, presently to be set forth, its other exceptions must fail. The instruction of the court is this: \u201cThe court charges the jury that it cannot consider the price of fertilizers in the spring of 1916 as evidence of the market price on 30> November, 1915.\u201d\nThe fertilizer, as we have already stated, was purchased for the fall delivery, and plaintiff proposed to prove what was the price in the spring of 1916 for the purpose of further proving the price on 30 November, 1915. If this evidence was not competent, there was no evidence on the issue of damages, as plaintiff admits in its brief. The plaintiff should-have been restricted to 30 November, 1915, in proving its damages for the breach of the contract, as the latter covered only the fall season\u2014 that is, from 1 September, 1915, to 30 November, 1915. The settlement of the next year, or six months after 30 November. This surely was not the true construction of the contract, but plaintiff so states its meaning in section 3 of the complaint, which is as follows: \u201cThat during the year 1915 plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement, by the terms of which defendant agreed to supply to plaintiff various kinds and qualities of fertilizers, at prices therein agreed, upon the demand and order of plaintiff prior to 1 December of said year to an amount at option of plaintiff not exceeding .. tons.\u201d But the law attaches that meaning to the contract. It refers to the season beginning with 1 September, 1915, and ending 30 November, 1915. Abel v. Alexander, 15 Am. Rep., 270; S. v. IIaddock, 9 N. C., 462. But we do not regard this as very material and will not prolong the discussion of it.\nThe question is, \"Was it competent, in order to prove the market price on 30 November, 1915, to show what it was in the spring of 1916 ? What time in the spring? This season extends from 1st March to 1st June, and the general offer of proof would include the price as late as May of the next year, or six months after 30 November. This surely was not competent evidence, and the charge was correct.' The two dates are too far apart, and there is evidence that the market was rising during the intervening period. There is nothing to show that the price on 30th November and that in the following spring were the same. The parties were contracting with reference to a fluctuating market in which, of course, the prices were not always the same. The contract was broken in the fall and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the difference in the contract and the market price at the time and place of delivery. This is the general rule. Moye v. Pope, 64 N. C., 543; Berbarry v. Tombacher, 162 N. C., 497; Am. L. Co. v. Quiett Mfg. Co., 162 N. C., 395; Am. L. Co. v. Drexel F. Co., 167 N. C., 565.\nIn the Berbarry-case we held, first, that the measure of damages for a seller\u2019s breach of contract to deliver goods is the difference between the agreed price and the market value at the time and place of delivery, as fixed by the contract, and, second, that on a seller\u2019s breach of his contract to deliver, the buyer is entitled to recover nominal damages if no substantial damages be shown.\nWhat was the price in the Spring of the next succeeding year, nothing' else appearing, is not competent proof of wbat tbe price was on 30 November, 1915, as tbe following cases sbow: Alling v. Weisman, 59 Atl. (Conn.), 419; Coke Co. v. Mining Co., 20 So. (Ala.), 624; McLarin v. Birdsong, 24 Ga., 265; Waterson v. Seat, 10 Fla., 326; Ramish v. Kirshbrann, 27 Pac. (Cal.), 433; Sweitzer v. McCrea, 97 Ind., 404.\nIf we should bold evidence of this kind to be admissible, where would tbe line be drawn beyond which tbe plaintiff cannot go ? How could we determine that if fertilizers sold for a certain price in tbe spring of one year it would have sold for tbe same price in tbe fall of tbe year before ? There are available sources from which evidence of a more certain and definite character can be drawn as to tbe price at tbe time and place of tbe breach. 35 Cyc., at pp. 636, 637, states that tbe market price to be taken as a basis for estimating damages for nondelivery is tbe actual market price prevailing at the time and place of delivery for a similar grade of goods, or those of the kind and quality contracted for, and this market price should be taken as of tbe time tbe breach of tbe contract occurred, and not at a time thereafter, except under special circumstances which do not appear in this record. There is nothing shown in this case to withdraw it from the operation of the general rule.\nIn the view we have taken of the matter, the exception as to the discount becomes irrelevant, the jury having awarded only nominal damages.\n\u2019 Defendant, in its brief, states that it will not ask for a new trial if we affirm the plaintiff\u2019s appeal. As we have done so, it is not necessary to consider the exceptions in defendant\u2019s case on appeal. The plaintiff has been very favorably considered by the court below and has no legal or just cause to complain, especially when we consider defendant\u2019s appeal. We therefore affirm in both appeals.\nPlaintiff\u2019s appeal, no error.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal, no error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wali\u00eder, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "' E. R. Preston and 8. J. Durham for plaintiff.", "Tillett & Guthrie for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GASTON FARMERS WAREHOUSE COMPANY v. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY.\n(Filed 27 November, 1918.)\n1. Vendor and Purchaser \u2014 Fertilizer\u2014Contract\u2014Breach\u2014Measure of Damages \u2014 Evidence\u2014Market Price.\nUpon vendor\u2019s breach of contract of sale and delivery of fertilizers from 1 September to 30 November of a certain year, tbe measure of damages is tbe difference in tbe contract and market price at tbe time and place of delivery; and evidence of the\u2019market price during tbe following spring of tbe year is irrelevant and incompetent.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Verdict\u2014Harmless Error.\nErrors committed on tiie trial as to issues answered in appellant\u2019s favor-are cured by tbe verdict.\nActioN, tried before Webb, J., and a jury, at January Term, 1918, of Gaston.\nTbe action was brought to recover damages for failure to deliver-fertilizers for tbe fall season 1915, under a contract for tbe purchase-of the same. Tbe jury found (1) that the contract was made; (2) that there was a breach of it, and (3) assessed the damages at one cent. Judgment upon the verdict for the plaintiff and both parties appealed..\n' E. R. Preston and 8. J. Durham for plaintiff.\nTillett & Guthrie for defendant." }, "file_name": "0509-01", "first_page_order": 561, "last_page_order": 563 }