Monte Vista Ass'n v. Bond

8 Citing cases

  1. Marvin v. Dairymen

    131 Colo. 601 (Colo. 1955)   Cited 6 times

    The agreement did not provide that such delivery was for any specified period of time. Certainly the producer had a right, at least after the contract was in existence and had been performed for one year, to cancel or be relieved from the agreement upon certain conditions therein provided, therefore the case of Rifle Potato Growers Co-operative Association v. Smith, 78 Colo. 171, 240 Pac. 937, and Monte Vista Potato Grower's Cooperative Ass'n. v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 Pac. 813, upholding an injunction against a producer are not in point, because in the Rifle Potato Growers case the producer sold some of his product to another concern, and in the Monte Vista Potato Grower's case the producer agreed to sell all of the potatoes produced by him during the year 1923 to 1927 inclusive. Therefore it can readily be seen that the associations were entitled to injunctive relief or specific performance of the contract.

  2. Rinnander v. Milk Producers

    166 P.2d 984 (Colo. 1946)   Cited 6 times
    In Rinnander v. Denver Milk Producers (Colo. 1946) 166 P.2d 984, the defendant offered a member 2 cents per pound more for his milk, thereby attempting to induce a breach.

    There was no change in possession as required by section 14, chapter 71, '35 C. S. A., and the situation is no different than that which obtained in Dairy Co-operative Association v. Brandes Creamery, 147 Ore. 488, 30 P.2d 338, where the court in its opinion said: "This is a case where an attempted evasion of a contractual duty by the formation of a new corporation, new (but not materially different) in name only, is interposed as a defense in equity where injunctive relief is sought against a continuing breach of said duty," and refused to recognize the attempted transfer. As between father and son here, the General Assembly has taken away the right of either to show that the father did not have control of the dairy herd. Paragraph (c), section 32, chapter 106, '35 C.S.A. Monte Vista Potato Grower's Ass'n v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 Pac. 813. While this statute would not necessarily be controlling against defendant here, the court had a right to consider it in the relationship sought to be established by the Wojtachas. We are not overlooking the other assignments of error, but are satisfied that they are without merit, or their consideration is unnecessary to the disposition of the case.

  3. Knoxville Milk Producer's Ass'n v. Blake

    102 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn. 1937)   Cited 2 times

    That case deals with a contract for the lease of convicts. In Monte Vista Potato Growers' Co-Op. Ass'n v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 P. 813, the bill was filed by the complainant association against W.A. Bond, a member, and his father; the son had a contract with complainant for all the potatoes produced by him from 1923 to 1927; for 1924, the son leased 40 acres of his land to his father, who knew that his son was a member of the association, and the father admitted that the lease was made for the purpose of attempting to evade the son's contract; both were enjoined, though the father was not a member of the association. In Friedberg, Inc., v. McClary, 173 Ky. 579, 191 S.W. 300, L.R.A. 1917C, 777, which was on a motion for an injunction, it appeared that McClary had a contract with the plaintiff association for all tobacco purchased by him in Indiana.

  4. Local Dairymen's Asso., Inc. v. Potvin

    54 R.I. 430 (R.I. 1934)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that "[i]t is unquestioned that it is an actionable tort for an outsider to deliberately and maliciously interfere with the contractual relations of another"

    In Beekman v. Marsters, supra, the court said: "Where the plaintiff proves that the defendant unlawfully interferes or threatens to interfere with his business or his rights under a contract, and further makes out in proof that damages will not afford an adequate remedy, equity will issue an injunction." See also Monte Vista Potato Growers Assn. v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516; Manchester Dairy System, Inc. v. Hayward, supra. Respondents argue that complainant's agreements with its members are void because they are not made to terminate within ten years as provided in the statute.

  5. Mountain States Beet Growers Marketing Ass'n v. Monroe

    269 P. 886 (Colo. 1928)   Cited 15 times

    Burns v. Wray Company, 65 Colo. 425, 176 Pac. 487. In Rifle Potato Growers Association v. Smith, 78 Colo. 171, 240 Pac. 937; Monte Vista Potato Growers Association v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 Pac. 813, and Wilson v. M. V. P. G. Association, 82 Colo. 428, 260 Pac. 1080, we held that public policy of a state is what its legislature declares it to be, and such contracts as are within the scope of the 1923 act are not void as against public policy. The specific questions now before us were not passed upon in either of the three cases mentioned. The contract of sale tendered by the sugar company to the defendant association, when first presented, was rejected by the defendant as not satisfactory. This rejection was within the scope of defendant's discretionary power, and if such power was not arbitrarily exercised, it might reject the contract notwithstanding the plaintiff and other growers may have approved of it. The trial court specifically so found. The contract between these parties provides that in case of such rejection the association, as selling agent of the grower, shall not be subjected to damages for such failure.

  6. Wilson v. Monte Vista Ass'n

    260 P. 1080 (Colo. 1927)   Cited 1 times

    That during the season of 1925 Wilson produced 270 tons of potatoes on the land leased to him by Sanderson, and retained and sold three-fourths of the crop in the Eastern market, contrary to the provisions of the contract made between Sanderson and the association. We have stated the facts of the case with unusual fullness, for the purpose of showing the similarity of the facts in the case at bar with the facts as they appear in the opinion of Justice Sheafor in Monte Vista Potato Growers' Co-Operative Association v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 P. 813. We have compared the record in that case with the record in the instant case, and we find the marketing contract in the Bond case almost identical in its provisions with the marketing contract in this case, and every substantial proposition of law advanced there is renewed here, and again urged upon our attention.

  7. Avon Products, Inc. v. Berson

    206 Misc. 900 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954)

    It has accordingly been held that it is not a justification for knowingly procuring a breach of a contract that defendant acted without an improper purpose but only to promote and advance his own economic interests. This principle has been stated and applied in numerous decisions in this country, such as Sorenson v. Chevrolet Motor Co. ( 171 Minn. 260, 214); R an W Hat Shop v. Sculley ( 98 Conn. 1); Monte Vista Potato Grower's Co-op. Assn. v. Bond ( 80 Colo. 516), and California Grape Control Bd. v. California Produce Corp. ( 4 Cal.App.2d 242). In the last two of this group the situation was somewhat analogous to the case at bar; an outside dealer who induced members of a co-operative marketing association to deal with him and thus violate their contract to market their entire crop with the association, was enjoined.

  8. Avon Prods. v. Berson

    206 Misc. 900 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    It has accordingly been held that it is not a justification for knowingly procuring a breach of a contract that defendant acted without an improper purpose but only to promote and advance his own economic interests. This principle has been stated and applied in numerous decisions in this country, such as Sorenson v. Chevrolet Motor Co. (171 Minn. 260, 214); R an W Hat Shop v. Sculley (98 Conn. 1); Monte Vista Potato Grower's Co-op. Assn. v. Bond (80 Col. 516), and California Grape Control Bd. v. California Produce Corp. (4 Cal. App. 2d 242). In the last two of this group the situation was somewhat analogous to the case at bar; an outside dealer who induced members of a co-operative marketing association to deal with him and thus violate their contract to market their entire crop with the association, was enjoined.