ARK.] STANDARD RICE COMPANY V. LANDERS. 517
STANDARD RICE COMPANY V. LANDERS. Opinion delivered June 21, 1926. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION-MISTAKE IN ACCEPTANCE OF CHE'6{.- Where the seller of three carloads of rice authorized . the cashier of his •bank to indorse the buyer's check • when it ' came 'to the bank, neither he nor the cashier knowing that there was , ariy • dispute as to the price to be paid for the rice, and the cashier having no authority to adjust any controversy, held thai aCicept-ance of a check for a less sum than the buyer had agreed iO pair did not bind the seller, such acceptance nOt amounting to an accord and satisfaction. Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court; George.:E". keek, Judge; affirmed. Sivley, Evans (E. MeCadden and L. C. Goilig, for appellant. • S. T. Mayo; for appellees. J. Appellees sold to appellant three. ears Of rice, and they testified that the sale was made at the price of $1 per bushel: .The rice'Whs shipped' to appellant at .• Memphis, where it was weighed and inspeCted, after which.appellant remitted to the Bank of Harrisburg at Harrisburg,. a voucher-check, in which was Shown the numbers of the cars ih Which the rice was shipped and.the proceeds Of the sale. This statement . was preceded . by a printed notation on the check reading as folloWs : "Iteins covered by this check. In full settlement following cars as per wt. sheet attached. The check was for. $2,967.15 . , and was payable to the joint order Of J. L. Landers and the Bank of. HarrisbUrg. The rice was owned by appellees', A. H. Landers and his brother, who Were copartners under the firm name of Landers Bros. The check .,vd.s made payable in this way for the reason that the bank had a mortgage on the rice. A. H. Landers testified that he.advised the bank of the sale, and informed the cashier that the check would be sent to the bank, and directed the cashier, when the check .came, to indorse it and collect it and apply the proceeds thereof to the indebtedness secured by the mortgage.
518 STANDARD. RICE COMPANY V. LANDERS. [171 The cashier of the bank did not know what the terms of the sale were, so, when the check was received by him, he indorsed the names of both payees, and in due course collected the check and applied the proceeds thereof as directed. Appellee A. H. Landers had the rice in charge for the firm of which he was a member, and was not in Harris-burg when the check was received by the bank. He returned to Harrisburg about three days after the check had been received and indorsed, and was then told by the cashier what the amount of the check was. Landers stated, at the time he received this information, that a mistake had been made, and he immediately called appellant over the long-distance telephone and inquired why he had not been allowed $1 per bushel for his rice in accordance with the contract of sale. The representative of appellant denied that appellant had agreed to pay $1 per bushel .for the rice, and testified that the rice was shipped to be sold:at the market price, and that the market price had been paid and the rice accounted for on tha:t basis. Within . 6, few days after this conversation occurred Landers went to Memphis and demanded a settlement ,on the basis of $1 per bushel. Appellant's manager insisted that appellant had not agreed to pay $1 per bushel; that the sale had been made subject to inspection in Memphis; and that, upon inspection, it was found that the quality of the rice was poor, the rice was badly mixed, and some of it was actually rotten. The manager testified that he produced and exhibited to Landers s'amples of 'the rice, which confirmed the inspection, and he further testified that the rice was - all in the warehouse, and he proposed tO deliver the rice back to Landers if he were not satisfied with the inspection and the price. Landers admitted that this offer was made to him, but he testified that the rice shown him was not his rice, and that he knew it was not his from the kind of sacks from which it was taken, these sacks being unlike those in which his rice was shipped.
ARK.] STANDARD RICE COMPANY V. LANDERS. 519 H. H. Rowe testified that, before the * rice was shipped, he was employed as . a buyer for apPellant, and that he inspeCted the rice and found it in good condition, and that he cOmmunicated to appellant the result of hiS inspection as to samples and grade. A rice buYer for another dealer testified that he, too, inspected appel-lee's rice, and offered $1.03 per bushel for the rice, - but that his offer was declined for the reason that the rice had 'already been sold to appellant. The cashier of the bank who indorsed the check testified that, at the time he indorsed it, he did not know there was or would be any question about the correctness thereof. The jury returned a verdict for appellees for thp amount sued for, thus indicating a finding that the rice had been sold at $1 per bushel, and from the judgment pronounced on this verdict is this appeal. At the trial appellant requested only two instnic-tions, one being a request that the jury be directed to return a verdict in its favor. The second instruction requested by appellant reads as follows : "2. If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that A. A. Landers told Tom Flournoy, cashier of the Harrisburg State Bank, thaf he had sold his rice to the Standard Rice Company and that that company would send a eheck to the bank for the proceeds of same, and, when said check came, to indorse it and credit him with the proceeds of it, and if you further find from the evidence that Flour-noy did that, you will return a verdict for defendant, although Landers may not have told Flournoy of ihe contract between himself and the defendant rice company.". Both of these instructions were refused, and exceptions were saved to the refusal, and exceptions were also saved to the instructions given. Appellant states the issue presented by this appeal as follows : " The .question to be determined by this court may be concretely stated ,as follows : Did the court correctly declare the law with reference to the appellant's plea of accord and satisfaction. If it did, the judgment
520 STANDARD RICE COMPANY V. LANDERS. [171 in this case should be affirmed; if it did not, the judgment should be reversed and the cause dismissed." The court told the jury that there had been no accord and Satisfaction -, for the reason that the undisputed evi-derice showed the fact to be that the cashier did not know there was a controversy about the . price of the rice and ha:d not been authorized to indorse the check for an incorrect amount; and then submitted to the jury the question of fact as to what the terms of the sale were. In these instructions the court told the jury, if the, rice had been sold for $1 . per -bushel, to return a ierdiet for appeilees for the amount sued 'for, as there was no Ten-troverSy abont the quantity, but, if the sale had not been made for that price, to find the market value of the rice and to credit the amOunt of the check thereori. We do nof find it necessary to determine what effect Shofild be giVeri the language printed on the check quoted above, for the. follOWirig reasons : In authorizing the bank cashier to ifidorse the check, Landers assumed that it would be drawn for the correct amount, a g fourid 'by the jUry, arid the cashier did riot know'it was not for the cOrred amount. As soon as it' was discovered that the Cheek did not cover the coritract price, Landers refused to receive it as payment in full. That the cashier had no authority to adjUst acontroVersy—had he knoWn that one exiSted or would arise—is . an undisputed fact in the case. It'is also an'imdispiited fact that appellees sold the riee to appellant, and the question of fact—at what price the rice had been 'soldis settled by the verdict of the jury, and, , under the teStiinony, the jury might have found that the market price was even greater, than. the 'Price sued' for; as there was testimony that appellees had refused an offer Of $1.03 per thishel, for the reason that it had previously been sold to appellant for $1. The face of the check was for an amount whieh appellant admitted Owing 'appellees, and the check itself was never received thein or. 1 . their authority in settlement Of the true priCe , of the . rice. It is true• the proceeds of the cbeck had been credited to their account at the bank, but it is
ARK.] 521 true alsii that this money belonged to them, according to appellant's own testimony. There waS therefore no accord and satisfaction; and the testimony fully sustains the finding that the rice had been sold for $1 per bushel, and the judgment of the 'court below wiil therefore be affirmed;
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.