MacMillan

E. H. Freeman Electric Co. v. MacMillan

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 127·89 Cal. App. 264·264 P. 491
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 1928Docket No. 4735.California854 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Valentine, J.

This is an action to recover the alleged purchase price of certain goods described as electrical fixtures, alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant. The trial court found that the defendant was justified in refusing to accept the goods because plaintiff had failed to follow the shipping instructions contained in the orders given by defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the findings and judgment.

The orders in question contained, among other things, the following instructions: “Ship us via c/o Williams S. S. Co.,” “Ship as Elec. Fixtures and mark Bill of Lading ‘Part of Car Load,’ ” and “Boats sail from Philadelphia from Drexel Bldg.”—giving the dates. It is admitted that these instructions were not followed and that defendant refused to accept and did not accept the goods.

Appellant does not explain why the goods were not shipped by the Williams Steamship Company nor why the bill of lading was not marked “Part of Car Load.” The court found that by reason of such failure to follow shipping instructions said goods, wares, and merchandise were not included in a consolidated car of freight then and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.