Strahorn-Hutton-Evans Commission Co. v. Red River Oil Co.

Citations

• 104 La. 664

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Under a contract by a party to furnish another with hulls and cotton seed meal for feeding cattle, wherein the quality of the articles to be furnished is not declared, the vendor’s obligation in respect thereto is governed by the provisions of Article 2156 of the Civil Code to the effect that “if the debt is of a thing which is determined only by its species, the debtor, in order to gain his discharge, is not bound to deliver it of the best kind, but he cannot tender it of the worst.”</p> <p>2. Complaints made on special occasions of the feed furnished on these dates, which objections were removed by the substitution immediately of other feed, did not rise to the seriousness of a putting in default. The fact that on all other occasions the feed furnished was not only received and used withouf objection, but paid for according to the terms of the contract without complaint, is evidence that there was no just cause for dissatisfac- . tion. (Giecke vs. Finlay & Brunswig, 45th Ann. 408.)</p> <p>3. The mere fact that a party who has contracted to furnish another with feed for his cattle, knows that the latter intends to ship them to market for sale when fattened, does not commit him to the fattening of the cattle by the feed, particularly when it is not pretended that the vendor was an expert in cattle feeding, or had any knowledge as to what particular quality of feed would bring about certain results, or had made any representations or stipulations on that subject. When it is shown that a number of contributing causes led up to the cattle’s not fattening as the purchaser had contemplated, the vendor of the feed would not be liable for loss to the purchaser, if the badness of the food had been one of such causes and the vendor was legally liable unless it could be shown what proportion of the loss was attributable to that fact.</p>