LlNK v. DURANT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO.

LlNK v. DURANT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO.
1923 OK 1160
221 P. 482
94 Okla. 216
Case Number: 12196
Decided: 12/18/1923
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

LlNK
v.
DURANT GRAIN AND ELEVATOR CO.

Syllabus

¶0 Contracts--Threshing Contract With Owner of Grain--Liability of Mortgagee.
Where a party contracts with the owner of a crop of oats to thresh same for the sum of $ 100, and the owner tells him that another party who has a mortgage on the oats will pay for the threshing, and the thresherman does not see the party who has a mortgage on the oats, but relies on the statement made by the owner of the oats that the mortgagee will pay for the threshing and goes on and threshes the oats, and the same is delivered to the party holding the mortgage and he takes his debt out of the proceeds and pays the balance over to the owner of the oats, the party who holds the mortgage is not liable to the thresherman for the threshing of the oats. The record shows that the thresherman had no contract whatever with the person holding the mortgage, and that he never notified the person holding the mortgage that he would look to him for payment of the threshing, but relied solely on the promise of the owner that the mortgagee would pay for the threshing. He is not entitled to recover against the mortgagee.

Porter Newman and George F. Deck, for plaintiff in error.
Hayes & McIntosh, for defendant in error.

MAXEY, C.

¶1 We have carefully read the testimony in the case and the finding of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence, and in our opinion the court was right in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence. Link had no contract whatever with the defendant, Durant Grain & Elevator Company. All the contract he did have was with Sowls, the owner of the oats, who told him that the Durant Grain & Elevator Company held a mortgage on the oats and would pay for the threshing. Link never notified the Durant Grain & Elevator Company that he looked to them for pay for threshing the oats; in fact, never told them of his contract or understanding with Sowls until after the oats were threshed and delivered, and the Durant Grain & Elevator Company had settled with Sowls, taken out what Sowls owed them, and paid him the balance. There is no implied contract in the case. Link had an expressed contract with Sowls to thresh the oats at a given price, but he had no contract of any kind with the Durant Grain & Elevator Company, and the mere fact that the elevator company hauled the oats away and collected their mortgage and paid the balance over to Sowls does not make an implied contract on the part of the elevator company to pay for the threshing. If Link had gone to the elevator company before he threshed the oats and told them the arrangements he had made with Sowls about threshing the oats, and the elevator company had agreed to hold out the $ 100 for threshing and pay it to Link, there would have been no doubt about the elevator company's liability to pay for the threshing. There is absolutely nothing in the record to show any liability on the part of the Durant Grain & Elevator Company, and, in our opinion, the judgment of the trial court is correct and the case should be in all things affirmed.