[DOWNLOAD] "Don Church v. Lawrence Roemer and Audene" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10904 * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Don Church v. Lawrence Roemer and Audene
• Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10904
• Release Date : January 20, 1972
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 67 KB

Description

This action was brought to recover payment of a debt and to foreclose a farm laborer's lien. The plaintiff-appellant Don Church
was hired by Lawrence Roemer to harvest potatoes grown on land leased by Roemer, part of which land was owned by the defendant-respondent
Simplot Industries. Although the J. R. Simplot Company -- as contrasted to the separate corporation of Simplot Industries
-- is not a party to this lawsuit, it is involved in the facts of the case. Roemer had contracted to sell all of his potatoes
to the J. R. Simplot Company. Church completed his harvesting work in November of 1967 and delivered the harvested potatoes
to the J. R. Simplot Company. The J. R. Simplot Company paid for these potatoes by writing out checks to the order of Roemer,
Simplot Industries, and a third party not involved in this action (Farmers Financial Service Co., which had a security interest
for fertilizer supplied by Simplot Industries). These checks were deposited in a checking account maintained at the First
Security Bank, on which account checks could be drawn only with the signatures of both Roemer and an agent (Mr. Balderama)
of Simplot Industries. Simplot Industries had helped Roemer obtain a "line of credit" from the First Security Bank, and in
order to protect itself, Simplot Industries required that Balderama cosign all of Roemer's checks for farming expenses. In late November, 1967, Roemer was prepared to pay Church in full for the services he rendered in harvesting potatoes on
the land leased to Roemer. But Church, for tax reasons, requested that payment be deferred until January of 1968. Roemer replied
that Church would have to check with Balderama, whereupon Church met with Balderama and Roemer and renewed his request. Balderama
did not testify at the trial. Roemer testified that Balderama said such a deferral "would be all right" and that "Balderama
agreed that the payment be deferred until after the first of the year." The plaintiff-appellant Church testified that Balderama
"agreed that the money was there at that time and would be after the first of the year." This testimony was supplemented by
that of a third party present at the time (Mr. Dougherty, who is not a party to this suit), who testified that Balderama said
that "the money was there and it was all right to wait until after the first of January to get the money." Relying upon this
testimony, the appellant contends that Balderama's statements had the effect of binding Simplot Industries to pay the appellant
for the work he had done at Roemer's request.

Books Free Download "Don Church v. Lawrence Roemer and Audene" PDF ePub Kindle