{
  "id": 1559039,
  "name": "WHITE BRANCH HAT CO. v. AMONETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "White Branch Hat Co. v. Amonett",
  "decision_date": "1934-09-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 3944",
  "first_page": "501",
  "last_page": "502",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 N.M. 501"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "35 P.2d 977"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 2965,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.119645932871841e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38137995690096216
    },
    "sha256": "7ffb41d35e536b925e67970748c125ec20332b803b6d24e9fb92a24c83d4c11e",
    "simhash": "1:25e637727a4939b9",
    "word_count": 490
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:00.087305+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WATSON, O. J., and HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WHITE BRANCH HAT CO. v. AMONETT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SADDER, Justice.\nPlaintiff recovered judgment against defendant for $225, representing a balance claimed upon a shipment of hats. Defendant was engaged in the business of conducting a harness and auto shop. Displaying reluctance to deal in hats, plaintiff\u2019s salesman represented to defendant that if they did not sell readily, the plaintiff would accept a return of the hats or extend liberal credit on the account. It was issuable whether the representation was authorized. The plaintiff had no knowledge thereof at the time it received the order from its salesman or when it shipped the goods.\nThe order was in regular form, without mention of the representation; one copy being forwarded to the plaintiff, and another mailed to the defendant, within a few days following the salesman\u2019s call. The hats were received by defendant some two months after date of the order, to wit, July 12,1929. About three days prior to their receipt, defendant received an invoice covering the shipment showing payment due October 1, 1929, less 2 per cent., discount if paid on or before maturity. The defendant did not at the time protest that the terms of sale were otherwise than as disclosed by the order and invoice.\nHowever, a controversy later arose between the parties over terms of the sale, when plaintiff began pressing for payment. The latter declined to recognize defendant\u2019s claim of right to return the goods. It repudiated any authority in the salesman to make said r\u00e9presentation. But it did extend liberal credit upon the account.\nPending the controversy defendant paid $100 on account and, while asserting his right to return the goods, also made promises of payment in the future, if plaintiff! would indulge.\nThe trial court rendered judgment for the \u2022balance claimed. It is based upon facts as recited above. The defendant questions sufficiency of the evidence to sustain some of the findings but we consider it substantial.\nThe issue over the salesman\u2019s authority disappears in the trial court\u2019s finding that the plaintiff did perform the alternative promise of extending liberal credit. Under defendant\u2019s own version of the questioned promises, the plaintiff was to accept a return of the hats, or grant a liberal extension of credit on the account. It could not be required to do both. Indeed, the granting of one alternative presupposed a denial of the other.\nBut, over all, the defendant\u2019s promises to pay, if indulged, followed by indulgence, made after notice that plaintiff would refuse to accept a return of the hats, furnish adequate support for the action of the trial court in awarding recovery.\nFinding no error in the judgment, it will be affirmed. '\nIt is so ordered.\nWATSON, O. J., and HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SADDER, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. C. Maynard, of Roswell, for appellant.",
      "C. J. Neis, of Roswell, for appellee.'"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "35 P.(2d) 977\nWHITE BRANCH HAT CO. v. AMONETT.\nNo. 3944.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nSept. 4, 1934.\nRehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1934.\nH. C. Maynard, of Roswell, for appellant.\nC. J. Neis, of Roswell, for appellee.'"
  },
  "file_name": "0501-01",
  "first_page_order": 537,
  "last_page_order": 538
}