(dissenting). In this case the appellees are being awarded money that they never contracted to receive and from a source of payment that undertook to specifically exclude them. I respectfully dissent, because I cannot see that the appellees have any right to ask a court of equity to aid them in being thus enriched.
Appellees, Birmingham, et al., were sharecroppers for Houck and were to receive one-half of the net proceeds from each bale of cotton and seed, just as sold. The cotton was ginned at the Planters Co-op Gin, which had a lower ginning rate and a higher price for seed than other gins. Houck settled with Birmingham, et al., and thus completely and fairly fulfilled and discharged his contract with the appellees.
Then later, the Planters Co-op Gin Company delivered a patronage payment to Houck for the cotton ginned from his farm. It was given to Houck individually and not to the appellees, because the Planters Co-op Gin Company specifically excluded the appellees from being the beneficiary of the patronage payment. This is shown in the testimony that the payments would be made “to patrons of the Co-op and that patrons would be landlords who were renting their land for a part of the crop . . . and would not include . . . any sharecropper.”
The witness Chester Caldwell was secretary of the Planters Co-op Gin Company; and here is his testimony:
"Q. I believe you said you were one of the original incorporators of this Co-op; has it been your impression and the general belief of all of the stockholders and directors in the forming of this Co-op and ever since that time that the sharecroppers were not classed as patrons and were not entitled to patron refunds or dividends?
"A. That is right and that information came down directly from the Bank of St. Louis. It gives us certain rules and regulations to operate under.
"Q. Does the Bank of Cooperatives in St. Louis prescribe certain rules and regulations for the conduct of their business as long as you borrow money from them ?
“A. That is right.
“Q. And neither that bank, nor your board of directors, nor your stockholders’ meetings have ever classed sharecroppers as producers, and have never classed them as entitled to any of these patron refunds or dividends?
“A. No, that is left up to the discretion of the man they are working for and he can do whatever he wants to as far as we are concerned.
"Q. Of course, if a man to whom you paid patron’s refunds or dividends wants to give it away, endow a college, or get drunk, that is no business of yours.
‘ ‘ A. Entirely his business, no concern of the gin.
“Q. And the Co-op is under no obligation, legally or otherwise, to pay any of the dividends or profits to any sharecroppers?
“A. That is right.”
Thus, the Court is taking money personally given to Houck by the Planters Co-op Gin Company and forcing him to give part of it to Birmingham, et al., long after there had been a complete settlement of the proceeds of the crop. Anyone who wants to see the forced "redistribution of wealth” need go no further than this case.