Edwards v. Peavey Company

Opinion

No. 13117

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

1976

WILLIAM ROBERT EDTJARDS and BARBARA EDWARDS, husband and w i f e ,

P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

PEAVEY COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n ,

Defendants,

and

ROY VAESSEN,

I n t e r v e n o r , Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellants :

Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B. Gary a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana

F o r Respondents:

Drysdale, M c k a n & S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana James McLean a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana H o l t e r , Heath and Kirwan, Bozernan, Montana

Submitted: March 1 0 , 1976

Decided : MkY 19 1976 Filed : ;3 1976 . I . ' IL. C e r e 5 . Ualy l e l ~ v e ~ e-he J ~ I . Z I ~ U I IC d 31 L I L~ C L L . ~ .

O

r h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a f i n a l ,judgment i n a c o n t r a c t

~LLLOLI ~ t ~ l l , ~ r u i t hge terms o f a farm l e a s e i n f a v o r o f Roy

n

\ , / a d s s e n , I - e s p o n d e n t , by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County,

ludge W. W. Lessley presiding.

On August 1 0 , 1972, p l a i n t i f f s W i l l i a m and B a r b a r a Yuwards, husband and w i f e , ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Edwards) ~ ~ r c h a s e d f a r m s o u t h w e s t o f Bozeman, Montana, from o n e John

a

"asha. Edwards d e c i d e d t o l e a s e t h e f a r m on a c r o p s h a r i n g nrrangement t o t h e i n t e r v e n o r i n t h i s m a t t e r , Roy Vaessen. The q e r t i n e n t terms of t h e l e a s e a r e :

he t e r m o f t h i s l e a s e and a g r e e m e n t s h a l l e x t e n d from November 1, 1 9 7 2 , and c o n t i n u e f o r t h r e e ( 3 ) c r o p y e a r s t h e r e a f t e r , and s h a l l r e r m i n a t e on November 1, 1975. "Subject t o t h e foregoing r e s e r v a t i o n , t h e Lessors do hereby a g r e e t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l have possess i o n of t h e p r e m i s e s h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d on November 1, 1972, and t h a t t h e L e s s e e s h a l l d u r i n g t h e t e r m af t h i s l e a s e , f a r m t h e l a n d s h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d i n a good and f a r m e r - l i k e manner, a n d , a s r e n t a l f o r !:he u s e o f s a i d l a n d s i t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e L e s s o r s s h a l l r e c e i v e an undivided one-third (1/3) of a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d upon t h e a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d l a n d s d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 3 , 1974 and 1975 and t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l r e c e i v e a n u n d i v i d e d t w o - t h i r d s (213) ~ f s a i d g r a i n c r o p s d u r i n g t h e y e a r 1972 and t h e r e - ~ f t e throughout t h e term o f t h i s l e a s e . 11

r

The t e r m s o f t h e f a r m s a l e a g r e e m e n t between s e l l e r ? a s h a and S u y e r Edwards p r o v i d e d t h a t Edwards would p r o v i d e

w i n t e r wheat s e e d and Pasha would p l a n t d u r i n g t h e f a l l 1972. T h i s was done a r o u n d O c t o b e r 20 t o 23, 1972. Vaessen a s s i s t e d

w i ~ h h e p l a n t i n g and a l s o w i t h t h e h a r v e s t i n 1973.

t Edwards t e s t i f i e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e c r o p h a r v e s t e d i n 1973 was $ 1 8 , 5 6 9 .

Edwards c l a i m s t h e e n t i r e 1973 wheat c r o p and Vaessen clai111s e n t i t l e m e n t t o t w o - t h i r d s o f a l l 1973 g r a i n c r o p s , i n c l u d i n g

t h e 1973 w i n t e r wheat c r o p , less t h e e x p e n s e o f s e e d and h a r v e s t i n g which a r e t o b e p a i d by V a e s s e n , u n d e r t h e terms o f h i s l e a s e .

1 .luly 1 1 , L 9 7 4 , 9dwards r i l e d 2 ~ d m p l a i r i ts c a r i n g

f:hdt d u r i n g t h e months 2f Oc tober-November, 1-973 Edwards had

d e l i v e r e d t o d e f e n d a n t Peavey Company a g r a i n c r o p and t h a t i n

e a r l y 1974 Edwards d i r e c t e d Peavey Company t o s e l l t h e g r a i n .

The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d Peavey Company s o l d t h e g r a i n b u t wrong-

r u l l y r e t a i n e d a p o r t i o n of t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e . The ~ m p l a i n tp r a y e d f o r t h e amount h e l d b y Peavey, $ 4 , 2 6 6 . 0 7 , p l u s

i-ncerest .

Roy Vaessen f i l e d a motion t o i n t e r v e n e a s d e f e n d a n t ,

i . ~ ~ u n t e r c l a i m a nand c r o s s c l a i m a n t t u n d e r R u l e 24, M.R.Civ.P., which was g r a n t e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . I n h i s answer, counter-

c l a i m and c r o s s c l a i m Vaessen a s s e r t e d t h e money h e l d by Peavey

Corllpany c o n s t i t u t e d ~ a e s s e n ' ss h a r e o f t h e 1973 g r a i n c r o p and heref fore i t w a s owed t o him r a t h e r t h a n t o Edwards. Defendant

:'eavey Company answered by a d m i t t i n g i t h e l d t h e money, b u t t h a t

i c was owed t o Peavey by b o t h Edwards and Vaessen. Edwards and

Vaessen f i l e d a n s w e r s d e n y i n g P e a v e y ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m s .

T r i a l was h e l d w i t h o u t a j u r y on ?.larch 3 1 , 1975. Prior t o t r i a l , Peavey Company moved t o amend i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t TSdwards and Vaessen b y w i t h d r a w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s s u b j e c t t o

a w r i t t e n s t i p u l a t i o n ; the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o ordered. The s t i p u l a -

c i o n p r o v i d e d ( 1 ) t h a t Peavey s t o r e d a c e r t a i n p o r t i o n o f w i n t e r

wheat and t h a t i t was h o l d i n g i t p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l ; ( 2 ) t h a t Edwards owed n o t h i n g t o Peavey b u t Vaessen owed Peavey $1,300.85; (3) t h a t Peavey n e e d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e t r i a l .

The c o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law which i n c l u d e d :

a ) P u r s u a n t t o t h e t e r m s o f t h e lease, i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen was t o r e c e i v e a n u n d i v i d e d t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 3 , 1974 and 1975, and p l a i n t i f f was

t o r e c e i v e o n e - t h i r d of t h e g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d d u r i n g t h e s a i d years.

b) The f a r m l e a s e and a g r e e m e n t was d r a f t e d by ~ d w a r d s ' a t t o r n e y and d u r i n g t h e n e g o t i a t i o n l e a d i n g up t o t h e d r a f t i n g o f t h e f a r m l e a s e , t h e Edwards had t h e c o u n s e l and

a d v i c e o f t h e i r b a n k e r , a c c o u n t a n t , and a t t o r n e y .

C) T h a t t h e f a r m l e a s e i s n o t ambiguous a n d c o n t a i n s a l l t h e a g r e e m e n t s made between t h e p a r t i e s .

d) T h a t i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen h a s on h i s p a r t d u l y performed a l l t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t b y h i m t o b e performed and c a r e d f o r and h a r v e s t e d t h e 1973 g r a i n

d r o p s e x c e p t t h a t Edwards p a i d f o r t h e c o s t s o f t h e w i n t e r wheat

s e e d and a p o r t i o n o f t h e c o s t s o f s w a t h i n g and h a r v e s t i n g t h e

w i n t e r wheat c r o p , a l l o f which i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e terms o f

t h e a g r e e m e n t s h o u l d have been p a i d f o r b y i n t e r v e n o r Roy V a e s s e n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t l i s t e d t h e expenses t o a t o t a l o f $2,051.

e) T h a t t h e p r o c e e d s from t h e s a l e o f t h e 1973 w i n t e r whedt c r o p i s t h e sum o f $ 1 8 , 6 3 5 . 0 7 .

f) T h a t b y t h e terms o f t h e l e a s e , i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen i s e n t i t l e d t o t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e p r o c e e d s i n t h e sum o f

$12,423.37, l e s s t h e e x p e n s e s p a i d b y Edwards, which p u r s u a n t t o t h e l e a s e w e r e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen i n

r h e sum o f $ 2 , 9 5 1 f o r a n e t t o t a l owed t o Roy Vaessen b y Edwards

i n t h e sum o f $10,372.37.

g) The c o u r t found Peavey Company e n t i t l e d t o $1,300.85 o f

t h e $ 4 , 3 6 3 . 9 4 he'd b y i t and owed b y i n t e r v e n o r Vaessen. That Vaessen was e n t i t l e d t o t h e $ 4 , 3 6 3 . 9 4 h e l d b y Peavey Company, which w i l l b e a c r e d i t a g a i n s t t h e $10,372.37 owed i n t e r v e n o r b y Edwards.

h) Under t h e t e r m s o f t h e l e a s e , i n t h e e v e n t o f l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e l o s i n g p a r t y s h a l l pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o u r t costs.

attorney fees

I n i t s judgment t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s s e s s e d $ 7 5 0 / p l u s i n t e r e s t and c o s t s a g a i n s t Edwards.

Judgment was e n t e r e d i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s

f i n d i n g s 9f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. From t h a t judgment

Edwards a p p e a l s .

Edwards l o o k s t o t h i s language i n t h e farm l e a s e :

"ik 9 9 L e s s e e s h a l l r e c e i v e an u n d i v i d e d two-

: ;

t h i r d s (213) of s a i d g r a i n c r o p s d u r i n g t h e y e a r 1972 and t h e r e a f t e r t h r o u g h o u t t h e term o f t h i s l e a s e . 71

Edwards c l a i m s t h a t b e c a u s e n e i t h e r p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o any c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n 1972 ( t h o s e c r o p s b e l o n g t o John P a s h a , t h e .-

p r e v i o u s owner) t h i s c r e a t e s an u n c e r t a i n t y a s t o t h e ownership o f t h e w i n t e r wheat p l a n t e d i n 1972 and h a r v e s t e d i n 1973. Edwards c l a i m s t h i s a l l e g e d u n c e r t a i n t y of ownership o f t h e w i n t e r wheat c r o p h a r v e s t e d i n 1973 h a s been r e s o l v e d by t h e s u b s e q u e n t conduct o f the parties. He p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t s (1) t h a t t h e s e e d and sub-

quent h a r v e s t i n g o f t h a t c r o p were p a i d f o r by Edwards, and ( 2 ) t h a t Vaessen d e l i v e r e d t h e w i n t e r wheat t o Peavey Company and s t o r e d i t i n Edwards' name a l o n e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t b o t h Edwards and Vaessen

i n t e n d e d Edwards t o have complete ownership o f t h e 1973 w i n t e r wheat c r o p . These two f a c t s a r e c o n t r a r y t o t h e l e a s e b u t t h e y do n o t c l e a r l y e v i d e n c e a d e s i r e t o remake t h e s t a t e d p r o v i s i o n s i n the contract.

Any c o n t r a c t , however made o r e v i d e n c e d , can b e d i s -

c h a r g e d o r modified by s u b s e q u e n t agreement of t h e p a r t i e s . The s u b s e q u e n t a g r e e m e n t , however, must i t s e l f comply w i t h t h e requirements of a c o n t r a c t , The a n t e c e d e n t agreement i s n o t d i s c h a r g e d by a l a t e r agreement t h a t i s v o i d f o r l a c k of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Power S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n v. J o s l i n , 175 F.2d 698. Under t h e terms of t h e l e a s e Vaessen i s e n t i t l e d t o t w o - t h i r d s of a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n 1973. To have him remake t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e l e a s e would r e q u i r e a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W f i n d no c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n

e

t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e c l a i m e d change i n t h e l e a s e agreement.

Edwards c l a i m s t h a t Vaessen c o u l d have t w o - t h i r d s o f a w i n t e r wheat c r o p p l a n t e d i n 1975 and h a r v e s t e d i n 1976 --- in p l a c e of t h e t w o - t h i r d s of t h e 1973 c r o p . Again, t h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t would a l l o w Vaessen t o c l a i m any p a r t of t h e 1976 h a r v e s t .

I t might v e r y w e l l b e t h a t t h e u s e of t h e y e a r 1972

i n t h e quoted p h r a s e from t h e farm l e a s e was n o t i n t e n d e d , b u t i t does n o t make t h e whole c o n t r a c t ambiguous. The i n t e n t o f t h e parties is clear.

17 Am J u r 2d, C o n t r a c t s $242, s t a t e s : Il

It i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e t h a t a c o u r t may n o t made a new c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p a r t i e s o r r e w r i t e t h e i r c o n t r a c t under t h e g u i s e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . ** It

must b e c o n s t r u e d and e n f o r c e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms employed, and a c o u r t h a s no r i g h t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e agreement a s meaning something d i f f e r e n t from what t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d a s e x p r e s s e d by t h e language t h e y saw f i t t o employ. I I T h i s w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e was e n u n c i a t e d i n B u l l a r d v. Smith, 28 Mont. 387, 399, 72 P. 761, where t h e Court s a i d :

" I f i t [a c o n t r a c t ] i s p l a i n and unambiguous, i t needs no c o n s t r u c t i o n , and i t i s t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t t o e n f o r c e t h e c o n t r a c t a s made by t h e p a r t i e s . II See a l s o : S e c t i o n s 13-704,. 13-705, R.C.M. 1947.

The d e c i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t gave t o t h e p a r t i e s e x a c t l y what t h e y b a r g a i n e d f o r i n t h e farm l e a s e . Vaessen r e c e i v e d t w o - t h i r d s of a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n t h e y e a r s 1973, 1974, and 1975; he was a s s e s s e d t h e expense o f s e e d and harvesting f o r those crops. Edwards r e c e i v e d o n e - t h i r d o f a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n t h o s e y e a r s and b o r e no expenses f o r those crops.

The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . The r e s p o n d e n t Vaessen i s awarded t h e sum of $750 a s a t t o r n e y f e e s on t h e a p p e a l i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s c o s t s .

W Concur: e Justice

Justices

Y Hone A r t h u r M a r t i n . D i s t r i c t

*

Judge, s i t c i n g f o r c h i e f J u s t i c e T... -" n- Ue*-:",.- - I -