60 BULLETIN 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
recovered from the members, the creditors of the association, if it 
failed or refused to take action to recover the excess advances, could 
have the association placed in the hands of a receiver. The receiver 
could then recover the excess advances from the members, because 
such excess advances are assets of the association or obligations 
due it. 
In a Xew York case in which a commercial concern made excess 
advances on wool to a cooperative association that was simply acting 
as the agent for growers, it was held that there could be no recovery 
against the association, but the right of the concern to recover 
such excess advances from the individual growers was recognized. 35 
EFFECT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT 
What is the real character of the form of cooperative-marketing 
contract commonly entered into by cooperative associations with 
their members? Do such contracts constitute contracts between and 
among the members as well as with the association? Is a member 
relieved from the obligation to deliver his products to the associa- 
tion for marketing because the association has committed a breach 
of the marketing contract or has failed to abide by its by-laws ? 
The general rule is that " the party to a contract who commits the 
first breach is the wrongdoer and thereby absolves the other party 
from performance.*' But is this rule applicable to cooperative asso- 
ciations in their differences with their members ? Strong reasons 
exist for urging that the rule has no application, or, at any rate, less 
application to such contracts than to the ordinary business contract. 
Cooperative contracts are apparently universally regarded as not 
only contracts with cooperative associations as legal entities, but as 
contracts between and among the various members. 36 An advantage 
given one member is ordinarily at the expense of other members. 
The defection of a member may increase the share of the total ex- 
penses that each of the others is called upon to pay. 
The effectiveness and efficiency of an association depend to a high 
degree on the faithfulness with which each member works with all 
of the other members. 
They [marketing contracts] are not simply agreements entered into with an 
agent, although a few people may be selected to act in the capacity of officers 
to manage the business of the association. The agreements are essentially 
to and with all the other members of the co-operative association, and the 
interests of every member rests upon the same foundation, and no member can 
be advantaged to the detriment of any other member. 37 
To release a member from his contract or to permit him to defend 
a suit brought against him by the association by showing that direc- 
tors or an officer, manager, or some other employee of the association 
has done something which should not have been done, or has failed 
to do something which should have been done, fails to take into 
consideration the obligation of the member in question to all of the 
^Mandell v. Cole, 244 X. Y. 221. 155 X. E. 106. 
38 McCauley v. Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-op. Ass'n. 171 Ark. 1155. 287 S. W. 419 ; 
Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n v. Borodcfsky. 143 Miss. 55S. 108 So. 802 : Haarparinne v. 
Butter Hill Fruit Growers' Ass'n. 122 Me. 13S. 119 A. 116: Manchester Dairv Svstem, 
Inc., r. Hayward. S2 N. H. 193. 132 A. 12; Rifle Potato Growers' Co-op.* Ass'n v. 
Smith. 78 Colo. 171, 240 P. 937 : California Canning Peach Growers v Downev et al., 
76 Cal. App. 1. 243 P. 679 ; Anaheim Citrus Fruit Ass'n v. Yeoman. 51 Cal. App. 759, 
197 P. 959 : Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Schulte. 113 Kan.' 672 216 P. 311. 
47 California Peach Growers v. Downey, 76 Cal. App. 1, 243 P. 679, 6S4. 
