Earl Fruit Co. v. Curtis

Citations

• 116 Cal. 632
• 48 P. 793
• 1897 Cal. LEXIS 600

Syllabus

<p>Contract as to Grape Crop—Action for Breach—Cross-complaint— Conflicting Evidence—Question for Jury—Improper Instruction. In an action for damages for breach of a contract to deliver grapes to be shipped and marketed by the plaintiff for the defendant, where the defendant denied the breach, and by a cross-complaint counterclaimed damages from the plaintiff for failure to receive and ship the grapes, where there was conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant, through an agent, had excused performance by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s contention was that the grapes were unfit for shipment, and that nothing could be realized upon them by shipping, and that defendant’s agent agreed to this, and refused to deliver them for shipment, such contention, if true, was a complete defense to defendant’s counterclaim for damages, unless defendant established the contention that the unfitness of the grapes for shipment resulted from the fact ihat they were overripe, and that plaintiff had refused to receive and ship them at a proper time; and the determination as to which contention was right under the evidence was for the jury; and it was error for the court to take the matter from the jury by an instruction that if the plaintiffs failed to pack the grapes and ship them as they had agreed, it was their duty to find for the defendant in any sum that they find from the evidence that the defendant has been damaged by the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the contract, thereby ignoring the special defense to the defendant’s counterclaim.</p> <p>Id. —Prejudicial Error—Conflicting Evidence as to Agency.—Where there was conflicting evidence as to the agency for the defendant of the person claimed to have agreed for defendant that the grapes need not be shipped, the court could not assume that he was without authority, and it cannot properly be urged that the error in the instruction ignoring the special defense to the defendant’s counterclaim was not prejudicially err