SCHREYER ". KIMBALL LUMBER CO.
SCHREYER v. KIMBALL LUMBER CO. (Olreutt Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 6, 1893.)
BALE-DELIVERy-WHEN 1'ITLE PASSES.
A foreign merchant contracted for several cargoes of lumber to be delivered free on board ship in the Appalachicola river, seasoned when delivered, within seven months from May 1st, certain advances to be made about June 1st. 'I.'hese advances were made, and the first cargo was prepared by August, piled by itself in the seller's yard, and the buyer notified of readiness. The latter had difficulty in chartering ships, and later the seller's mill and all the lumber were burned. HeU, that there was no delivery, and the title had not passed.
Immediately after the tIre the seller notified the purchaser thereof by cnblp., with the' request to "cancel all business," to which the buyer agreed, "subject to immediate re1:\Irn of advance." The seller accepted, but was silent as to the return of the advance. Held, that from this silence it could fairly be presumed that he thereby coI1tracted to return the money.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. Action by Fr. Julius Schreyer against the Kimball Lumber Company to recover moneys advanced on a purchase of lumber. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. John C. Avery, for plaintiff in error. Fred. T. Myers, for defendant in error. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and LOCKE, District· Judge. PARDEE, Circuit Judge. Fr. Julius Schreyer, plaintiff in error, a lumber dealer of Bremen, Germany, brought his action in the circuit court against the Kimball Lumber Company, a corporation of the state of Florida, engaged in the manufacture of lumber at Appalachicola, to recover the sum of $2,400, alleging indebtedness of the defendant in error for that sum "for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for so much money loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant; and in a like sum of money for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff; and in a like sum of money upon accounts stated between the plaintiff and the defendant." To this action the defendant entered a plea that it was never indebted as alleged. On the trial,. the judge instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, to which instruction the plaintiff excepted, and upon judgment entered against him, after moving in vain for. a new trial, brought the case to this court for review. The evidence adduced upon the trial is all embraced in the bill of exceptions, and the question presented to us is whether it warranted the instruction given. The evidence shows that Schreyer contracted with the lumqer company for three cargoes of from 900 M. to 1,500 M. feet of prime boards at '12.25 per thousand feet, to be seasOned when shipped, and to be delivered free on board
ships in the Appalachicola river, within seven months from May 1, 1890; ships to'1be chartered ·and, to be made on certain specified forms, the benefits of the whole charter party to the It was 'further agreedd'.hatthere was to be a rebate of 25 cents per thousand to be allowed if Schreyer's agent inspected the lumber on delivery. As to payment, it was agreed that the lumber company might draw upon Schreyer at 30 days'sight, JUIle lilt, in the sum of 10,000 marks, to be accepted by Schreyer and receive.d by the .lumber company as an advance on· the three cargoes contract-ed for,the same to be deducted trom the price 'of the last cargo; and that, otherwise, the company was to draw on Schreyer for the amount of inat three days' sight, payable at Bremen,. bills of lading to be attached to the drafts. On June 2d, the draft for 10,000 marks was drawn, and was sold,. netting the IUJ.Uber company the sum of $2,371.87, which sum wR!l·placed to the credit of Schreyer, and which draft· was thereafter in'due course paid and taken up by Schreyer. The jlrst order under the contract, designated by the parties ''Lenity,'' from 400 to 50() M. feet, according to specifications furnished 'by Schreyer, was preDared by the lumber company, and was ready for shipment in August, 1890. It wassta<;ked in a pile by itself in the company's yards, and the plaintiff in error was notified of its readiness, and urged to send a sllip for it.. There was apparentdifficulty in obtaining l!iuitable ships for Appalachicola river, and the lumber remained stacked and piled until October 28, 1890, when the lumber company's mill and all the lumber in the company's yards, amounting to about 4,000,000 feet, were destroyed by fire. At thetiIne of the fire the lumber'iJOmpany had insurance on 311 the lumber in the yard, under policies taken out before the lumber was cut for Schreyer, and taken out for the year, without regard to any particular The insurance the lumber company received, ifproportione<l up9n the entire quantity in the yard, would have amounted to about. '6.75 per thousand feet. Excluding the ''Lenity'' lot, still the 101;18 of the lumber company was largely in excess of the insurance. The lumber sawed for Schreyer had not been measured nor except as it went through the milL The net proceeds of the draft for 10,000 marks, if applied to pay for the ''Lenity'' order, were not sufficient to pay the value thereof. All the det¢ls of the contract were settled between the parties. by correspolldence, and after the contract there was considerable correspondence between the parties with reference to other orders and the. vessels that Schreyer was to charter; and therein many complaints were made by the lumber company as to the failure of to forward ships as· promptly as expected. August 20, 1890, the lumber company offered to accept another order for 300 M. feet, saying that, "if necessary, we can use from quantities now cut and.piled of your .schedule 'Lenity.' We understand it so. But we think we can have the cargo ready in addition to 'Lenity;' that is 'Lenity' and this .300M. feet also by October 15th, '90." This offer was accepted by. Schreyer. as "As to above business, I request you to prepare to my telegram,.
SCHREYER '/J. KIMBALL LUMBER CO.
was it intended to pa$8 until actual delivery free on board such sbipsWil Schreyer might charter and send for it; and it is clear to us that, if .the title to the lumber in question ever did pass, it must have been by some contract, express or implied, entered into between the parties subsequent to the making of the original agreement. l.J.'he only evidence which at all points to any such subsequent. c(mtract as having been made, is that relating to the order given by Schreyer for 300 M. feet of flooring, which shows that Schreyer consented, if necessary to fill the new order, to the taking of lumber from the lot prepared to fill the ''Lenity'' schedule. This falls Ilhort of showing a contract on .the part of Schreyer to vary the original agreement as to the time and place of passing title to the ''Lenity'' cargo, and short of showing an agreement on his part to delivery of the ''Lenity'' cargo in the lumber company's yards at a,time long before he would be able to obtain a ship to receive the same. Nor do we think that this evidence shows that the lumber c;ompany understood that,. in giving his consent, Schreyer WaB accepting delivery of the "Lenity" lot; for the company expressly said, in making, t,he proposition, "We can have the cargo to 'Lenity.'" The whole weight to be given to this negotia,ti()ll is that Schreyer, by consenting that the "Lenity" lot might drawn from, waived delivery until the October following if the lumber company had trouble in filling both orders. In connection with the instruction of the court to find for the defendant, it must also be noticed that,' by uncontradicted evidence, when the lumber compan,y's mill burned, the company called on Schreyer to .cancel all Qusiness. At that time there were outstanding, between the parties contracts covering the delivery of at least four cargoes. Schreyer consented to the . cancellation of all these orders:, subject to immediate, return of the advance. The lumber company accepted, but was silent as to the return of the adyance. From the silence of the lumber company at this time, and its acceptance of the cancellation of all orders, it is fair to presume that it thereby contracted and agTeed, to return the said advance, no ,matter what may have been its previous title or right to retain the same. We conclude there was error in giving the instruction complained of, and therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the cause, with instructions to award a new trial.
UNITED STATES v. GILLER. (Circuit Court, W. D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division. Aprtl 5, 1892.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS-ILLEGAL SALES--:''' RmTAII, DEAI,ERS."
An incorporated benevolent assodrrtion, which as such, to its members, for five cents each. tickets entitling the holder at a picnic of the association ,to a glass of beer or other refreshment, or to participate in some amusement, at his option"who, upon presentation of the ticket, and. any nunrbE>r::he may. so see fit to purchase, obtains: from .the .association beer therefOl',: which beer is the property of the corporation, as such. thereby becomes, a dealer'in malt liquors, within the llctofMarch 1, 1879· · 18·. (1 Supp.,:j1ev. St... 2d Ed., 229,). which defin,,*, such dealer to be ODe