No. 12264
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN
MELVYN MANLON,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
L. P. ANDERSON,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Honorable A. B , M a r t i n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
Lucas, J a r d i n e and Monaghan, Miles C i t y , Montana, Thomas M, Monaghan a r g u e d , Miles C i t y , Montana,
F o r Respondent :
Ask and P r a t t , Roundup, Montana, John L. P r a t t a r g u e d , Roundup, Montana.
Submitted: September 22, 1972
Filed: qt";f 1 c 1972 hIr. J u s t i c e Wesley Cast-les d e l i v e r e d the 3 p i n i o n of the Court.
This i s an appeal. from a judgment Tor p l a i n t i f f entcrecl upon f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a f t e r t r i a l b y t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y i n t h e s i x t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of C u s t e r .
P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendan? f o r equip- ment s o l d and d e l i v e r e d t o defendant on August 2 5 , 1963, The
amount of tlhe judgment was $1,700, The u l t i m a t e i s s u e h e r e i s whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i - a 1 c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e r u l i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
and i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . The t h r e e s e p a r a t e i s s u e s
a r e s e t out l a t e r , but we approach t h e i s s u e s w i t h an a t t e m p t a t s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e r a t h e r confusing and unusual circums~:ances. P l a i n t i f f i s one Mclvyn Hanlon, P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t appear a t the t r i a l . Wjlliam Hanlon, f a t h e r of p l a i n t i f f , appeared and s u p p l i e d a l l t h e testimony on b e h a l f of t h e p l a i n t i f f concerning
t h e s a l e of t h e equipment.
William EIanlon had been i n t h e o i l b u s i n e s s most of h i s
l i f e and o p e r a t e d a s t h e Hanlon D r i l l i n g Co. I n 1963 h e was a l s o t h e manager of P e t r o Fuel R e f i n i n g Company. During t h a t p e r i o d ,
Hanlon, f a t h e r of p l a i n t i f f , purchased t i r e s from t h e L.P. Ander- son T i r e Co.Inc., . a fifontana c o r p o r a t i o n , of which L. P. Anderson,
defendant h e r e i n , i s p r e s i d e n t . The t i r e s were b i l l e d t o Hanlon
D r i l l i n g Co., a b u s i n e s s name of William Hanlon. The same William Hanlon was g e n e r a l manager, b u t n o t owner, of P e t r o Fuel R e f i n i n g Company. The same William HanLon d i r e c t e d t h e t i r e company t o b i l l P e t r o Fuel f o r t h e t i r e s , which was done. Finally the t i r e account grew t o an amount of approximately $3,000. A t about t h i s same t i m e , one c o n t r a c t o r ' s S e r v i c e , I n c .
purchased some r e a l p r o p e r t y n e a r E i l l i n g s . This r e a l p r o p e r t y
had been t h e "yard s i t e " of Hanlon D r i l l i n g Co. and owned by
William Hanlon. Somehow, unexplained i n t h e r e c o r d , t h e Hanlon real property was purchased by Contractor's Service, Inc., which corporation had L. P. Anderson, the personal defendant here, as its president. At about the same time the tire company, through its vice- president and manager, was pressing the Hanlon Drilling Co. through William Hanlon for payment of the tire bill. SJilliam Hanlon suggested that he had some eqilipment L. P. Anderson might be in- terested in buying and, according to one witness, a meeting be- tween William Hanlon and L. P. Anderson was arranged. According to thi.s same witness, the meeting was arranged at ~anlon'srequest in response to the press for payment for the tires by L. P. Ander- son Tire Co. The "yzrd site" was where William Hanlon had numerous pieces of equipment stored. This site was now owned by Contractor's Service Inc., but William Hanlon continued to store his equipment there. At this point William Hanlon met with L. P. Anderson to discuss the possible sale of some of ~anlon's equipment and, according to L, P. Anderson, to discuss the tire bill of Petro Fuel Refining Company with L.P,Anderson Tire Co. Anderson agreed to accept several items of equipment from Hanlon. Anderson's version is that he was acting as president of the tire company and agreed to offset the account of Petro Fuel Refining Company with the tire company. ~anlon'sversion is that it was a personal sale to L. P. Anderson on behalf of his son Melvyn Hanlon, plaintiff here. William Hanlon, on August 25, 1963 billed as follows: "~rillingContractor Billings,Montana August 25, 1963 "Sold to I1 L. P, Anderson "Miles City, Montana I1 In Account with "HRI\JLON DRILLING CO. ''120 North 30th Street "BOX 1724 , "~illings Montana "1 - H y d r a u l i c P u l l e r , Complete $250.00 "1 - 7 114 x 18 O i l Well I4ud Pump 450.09 "I - Lathe 600.00 "1 - F r e e R o l l ' F o r ruck' 50.00 "Gas Tanks and Pump 350.00 "Total $1700.00" About a y e a r and one h a l f l a t e r , on January 5 , 1965, a n o t h e r b i l l i n g was mad-e:
"Drilling Contractor B i l l i n g s , Montana J a n u a r y 5 , 1965 1I L.P. Anderson " ~ l i l e sC i t y , Montana II In account w i t h "HANLON DRILLING CO . "120 North 3 0 t h S t r e e t "BOX 1724 " ~ i l l i n g s ,Plontana It Due : Melvyn L. Han.lon "8125163- One H y d r a u l i c P u l l e r Complete $250.00 "One 7 14 x 18 O i l w e l l Pump ! 450.00 "One Shop Lathe 600.00 "One F r e e R o l l f o r Truckbed 50.00 "Yard Underground Gas Pumps & Tanks 350.00 "TOTAL DUE lELVYN L. HANLCN $1,700.00"
Here, f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , t h e name o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , Melvyn Hanlon, a p p e a r s . William Hanlon had n e v e r informed a n y m e o f ~ e l v ~ n s tsa t u s . ' L.P. Anderson had n e v e r m e t n o r d e a l t w i t h M lvyn e . I n October 1966, t h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d i n Yellowstone County, The venue was changed t o C u s t e r County. P l a i n t i f f through h i s t h e n a t t o r n e y of r e c o r d w a s informed by M. Anderson's a t t o r n e y t h a t t h e r a c t i o n s h o u l d b e a g a i n s t L.P. Anderson T i r e Co., r a t h e r t h a n Ander- son p e r s o n a l l y . I n December 1966, t h e n c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f asked d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e t i r e company could b e s u b s t i t u t e d a s a defendant. ~ e f e n d a n t ' sc o u n s e l i n a l e t t e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 2 , 1967, d i d s o s t i p u l a t e . However, p l a i n t i f f n e v e r d i d amend t h e complaint t o i n c l u d e t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t . The matter l a y dormant from 1967 u n t i l 1971. On March 6 , 1971, William Hanlon w r o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g l e t t e r : l'Efr.Sam Ohnstad " S e c r e t a r y & T r e a s u r e r of L.P. Anderson Companies "BOX 190 "Miles C i t y Montana 59301 It Dear M. Ohnstad: r II I n r e p l y t o yours of January 1 5 , 1971, I wish t o remind you, t h a t t h i s Lathe was i n c l u d e d along w i t h o t h e r Equipment, which I s o l d t o L.P. Anderson f o r t h e sum of $ 1750.00, which amount i s s t i l l due m and must be p a i d e t o me. Which means t h a t I c l a i m no r i g h t s i n t h e Lathe and s o f a r a s I am concerned, you own i t and can do a s you wish it. 11 I n t h e p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s and when t h e Lathe was i n s i d e and o u t of t h e Weather, I was approched s e v e r a l t i m e s , by persons i n t e r e s t e d i n p u r c h a s i n g same and i n each i n s t a n t , I informed them t h a t , i t belonged t o L.P. ANDERSON, k t t h i s time I am s u r e t h a t i t could have been s o l d f o r s e v e r a l times t h e amount you a r e now, b e i n g o f f e r e d , I1 Surely you must be a c q u a i n t e d w i t h f a c t t h a t t h e o t h e r Equipment which I s o l d t o Anderson h a s been s o l d by you and a p p a r e n t l y t h e r e was no doubt on your p a r t a s t o ownership, which i s c o r r e c t , s i n c e you had purchased same from m and e s t i l l owe f o r same. Now, how come a l l a t once I have an i n t e r e s t , i n t h e only p i e c e of Equipment l e f t on t h e premises. "I do owe L.P.Anderson T i r e Company t h e sum of $150.00 which, I plan t o pay j u s t a s soon a s I r e c e i v e payment of t h e $ 1750.00 due me. II I have been informed t h a t you a r e t r y i n g t o charge m e w i t h t h e account of P e t r o Fuel R e f i n i n g Company, a Corpora- t i o n , who employed m a s t h e i r General Pfanager, t h i s account e I u n d e r s t a n d i s around $1500.00 You s u r e l y remember t h a t on o c c a s i o n s p r e v i o u s l y , P e t r o had p a i d t h e i r account w i t h t h e t i r e Company, by exchanging D i e s e l Fuel a s payment and you s u r e l y must remember t h a t P e t r o t r i e d t o g e t you t o t a k e D i e s e l and c l e a n u p t h e a c c o ~ ~ n on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s . t, II I stopped t o s e e L.P. i n r e g a r d t o paying m f o r t h e e Equipment, a t which t i m e , he t o l d you i n my p r e s e n c e t o i s s u e m a check. You i n t u r n , s a i d you could n o t do i t e a t t h i s time and t h a t I could e x p e c t i t l a t e r . A t t h i s same time I mentioned t h a ? P e t r o would l i k e t o pay up t h e i r a c c o u n t , by d e l i v e r i n g some of t h e i r D i e s e l i n an amount s u f f i c e n t t o c l e a n up t h e i r a c c o u n t , t h i s was n o t h i n g new a s i t had been handled t h i s way b e f o r e . 11 A t no t i - m e d i d I e v e r a g r e e o r i n t i m a t e , t h a t I w a s responsih1.c f o r any P e t r o purchases and I a m s u r e t h a t a t t h a t time, you p r e f e r r e d P e t r o ' s c r e d t t t o !lanLonls. It I a g r e e wTth you t h a t t h i s s h o ~ l l dbe s t r a i g h t e n e d out and can b e , by j u s t paying m e f o r t h e Equtpment ($1750).
Subsequently t r i a l was h a d on December 14, 1971, i j i t h o l l t a jury. The c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s "FL$?DINGS OF FACT
ÿ hat on o r about t h e 25th day of August, 1963, P l a i n t i f f
was t h e owner of t h e foLlowj.ng d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y : "I 7rP~drauli.cP u l l e r , complete "1 7 l / 4 :E 3-8 O i l Tvdell Pump "1. Shop Lache "I F r e e R o l l II or ~ r u c l c ' Red Underground gas tanlts and pumps
"That or, o r about t h e 25th day of h a g u s t , 1963, William
Sanlon, the P l a i n t i f f f s f a t h e r , a c c i n g on b e h a l f of- the P l a i n t y i f f , e n t e r e d j-nto an agreement w i t h L. I?. Anderson, the Defendant, whereby t h e Defendant agreed. t o pay $1,700.00 f o r tlls ahove descrLbed p r o p e r t y .
II That p o s s e s s i o n and ot~mcrshipof t5e above d e s c r i b e d p r o p c r t y passed t o the Defendant a t t h e time of t h e s a l e .
11 That on o r about t h e 25th clay of August, 1963, some of t h e
above d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y was renoved f r o n i t s l o c a t i o n a t Che t i m e of t h e s a l e .
hat a f t e r August 25, 1963, P l a i n t j f f never aga-in enjoyed t h e u s e o r p o s s e s s i o n of t h e above d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y . "VI "That Defendant was b i l l e d f o r t h e ahove d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y
on August 25, 1963, and a g a i n i n 1965. The b i l l whiclz was s e n t t o t h e Defendant i n 1965 c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the s a l e price f o r t h e p r o p e r t y was owed t o Melvyn Hanlon, t h e P l a i n t i f f h e r e i n , f r ~ r ~ 1 "That Defendant r e t a i n e d each s t a t e m e n t which was s e n t t o him and f a i l e d t o o b j e c t t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e s t a t e m e n t s o r
t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e d e b t p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n
i n October of 1966.
"VIII fl That Defendant ignored a l l r e q u e s t s f o r payment and
f a i l e d t o make any payments on s a i d accoumt. - 6 - f f OF LAW ~ ~ ~
'%?HEREFORE on t h e b a s i s of t h e f o r e g o i n g Findings o f
F a c t , t h e Court conclu.des a s a m a t t e r of law a s f o l l o v ~ s : "1, That t h e Defendant h e r e i n e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h William Hanlon, who was a c t i n g f o r and on b e h a l f of t h e P l a i n t i f f x~herebyt h e Defendant agreed t o purchase one h y d r a u l i c p u l l e r , complete, one 7 1 / 4 x 18 o i l w e l l pump, one shop l a t h e , one f r e e r o l l f o r t r u c k bed, and underground gas t a n k s and pumps, f o r a t o t a l p r i c e of $1.,700.00, "2, That t h e Defendant was f u r n i s h e d w i t h t h e above de- s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y and was p e r i o d i c a l l y b i l l e d f o r t h e s a l e s p r i c e of $1,700.00.
"3. That ~ e f e n d a n' ts r e t e n t i o n w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n t o t h e
above mentioned s t a t e m e n t s c r e a t e d an account s t a t e d whereby Defendant owes P l a i n t i f f t h e sum of $1,700.00. ''4, That t h e r e i s now due and owing t h e P l a i n t i f f by t h e Defendant t h e sum of $1,700.00, s a i d sum b e i n g t h e s a l e s p r i c e , p l u s i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n a t t h e r a t e of s i x p e r c e n t (6%) p e r annum t o g e t h e r w i t h p l a i n t i f f ' s c o s t s and disbursements of s u i t . " The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : 1. laxether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n because t h e p l a i n t i f f was n o t t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and f u r t h e r e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f was t h e owner of t h e equipment i n q u e s t i o n on hlugust 25, 1963. 2. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t r a n s a c t i o n between Wil-liam Hanlon and L. P. Anderson was one i n which L. P. Anderson was d e a l i n g i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , 3. Wl-tether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t an accotrnt s t a t e d e x i s t e d between t h e p l a i n t i f f and defendant. H e r e t o f o r e w e have attempted t o s e t out t h e f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s case. W s a y a t t e m p t e d , because t h e t r i a l was s o e incomplete and t h e testimony of William Hanlon so i n c o n s i s t e n t , within i t s e l f , t h a t t o r e l a t e the f a c t s accurately i s not possible. W have a l s o s e t o u t s e v e r a l e x h i b i t s showing t h e Hanlon D r i l l i n g e
Co, a s t h e owner of ehe equipment i n q u e s t i o n on t h e d a t e of t h e
sale. Yet Melvyn, who had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h Hanlon D r i l l i n g Co, who had never d e a l t w i t h Anderson, who had never been r e v e a l e d
by h i s f a t h e r , who d i d n o t appear a t t h e t r i a l , who had no docu-
mentary b a s i s f o r any c l a i m o t h e r t h a n t h e b i l l i n g of January 5 , 1965, a p p e a r s w i t h an account s t a t e d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of law. I J i l l i a m Hanlon's l e t t e r of March 6 , 1871, c l a i m s ownership of t h e equipment i n William a t a l l times. The amount i-s d i f f e r e n t , $1750 a s a g a i n s t $1700 when HanLon D r i l l i n g Os b i l l e d Anderson i n
August 1963. I n h i s testimony William E-lanlon claimed t h a t h i s son Melvyn owned t h e equipment i n August 1963 by v i r t u e of some k i n d of a
g i f t from William t o Melvyn, sometime p r i o r . William Iianlon d i d n o t produce any documentary evidence of any t r a n s f e r s between h i m s e l f and ?Ielvyn. As h e e x p l a i n e d a t one p o i n t , If;': -" " The son r\
and I a r e f a t h e r and son and we d o n ' t have t o go i n t o a l o t of II paperwork t o p r o t e c t one a n o t h e r . Subsequent t o t h e s a l e of t h e equipment, h e claimed h i s son gave him, t h e f a t h e r , t h e r i g h t t o
c o l l e c t t h e amount. T h i s o r a l testimony i s f l a t l y d i s p u t e d by
t h e documents, i n c l u d i n g t h e l e t t e r h e r e t o f o r e s e t f o r t h d a t e d
March 6 , 1971, A t one p o i n t i n t h e t e s t i m o n y , a f t e r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e two b i l l i n g s a s e x h i b i t s , William Hanlon had t h i s t o s a y :
"Q. Did you e v e r r e c e i v e any r e s p o n s e from L.P. Anderson i n r e g a r d t o t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t you s e n t t o him? "A. I stopped h e r e i n Miles C i t y a t h i s Yard, and I w a i t e d while he was busy w i t h some of h i s employees, and a s soon a s h e was f r e e , I asked him i f I could g e t a check f o r t h i s equipment. He s a i d , ' L e t ' s go over t o t h e o f f i c e . I and a s I remember, h e p u t h i s band on m s h o u l d e r , o r on m arm, and we went over t o t h e y y o f f i c e , and he t o l d h i s bookkeeper t o make Hanlon out a check f o r t h a t account. The boolckeeper s a i d , 'we d o n ' t ---we c a n ' t do i t now. t So when I walked o u t , L.ge s a i d i t would probably - - - s a i d h e rvoul-d probably g i v e / a check i n a couple weeks. 1 3 The r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h i s testimony t o t h e l e t t e r of Yarch 6 , 1971, shows t h a t William Hanlon d e a l t a t a l l times a s t h e owner of t h e e q u i p m n t . Cl-early, from a l l of t h e c r e d i b l e t e s t i m o n y , s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n any way, William Iianlon was t h e r e a l p a r t y i n interest. This was c h a l l e n g e d by motion promptl-y and a t a l l t i m e s , N showing of compliance w i t h s e c t i o n 29-208, R.C.N. o 1947, was a t t e m p t e d o r made. The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 2 i s n o t borne o u t by t h e r e c o r d , and i t s c o n c l u s i o n of law No. 1 i s i n c o r r e c t . Wiliiam ~ a n l o n ' stestimony was i n c o n s i s t e n t a t every s t a g e . Even i f h i s testimony i n r e g a r d s t o some s o r t of a g i f t by him t o h i s son p r i o r t o t h e s a l e was b e l i e v e d , a t t h e time t h e s u i t was f i l e d h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s son had g i v e n him t h e account s o t h a t i n any e v e n t h i s son 1-Ielvyn was n o t t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , M.R,Civ, P , , Rule 1 7 ( a ) . The second i s s u e w i l l n o t be d i s c u s s e d , b u t i n p a s s i n g wc do observe t h a t t h e testimony was c o n f l i c t i n g . T h i s second i s s u e i s n o t i m p o r t a n t t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e c a s e , because i f Melvyn i s n o t t h e proper p a r t y i t m ~ k e sno d i f f e r e n c e . The t h i r d i s s u e a s t o an account s t a t e d w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e e x h i b i t s and testimony p r e v i o u s l y s e t forth. While William Hanon t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e met w i t h L.P.Anderson, Melvyn n e v e r d i d meet, correspond, o r i n any way e n t e r i n t o a new agreement w i t h L.P, Anderson. The o n l y c o n n e c t i o n t o Melvyn was p l a i n t i f f ' s b i l l i n g of January 5 , 1965, h e r e t o f o r e s e t o u t . This i n v o i c e was on William Hanlon's l e t t e r h e a d , d i s p u t e d by SJilliam ~ a n l o n ' sown l e t t e r of l a t e r d a t e ; and does n o t amount t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence r e q u i r e d by law. I n Iqelson v. 'I.lontana I r o n Mining Conpany, 140 Mont. 331,334, 371 P.2d 874, t h e law i n Montana h a s been e x p l a i n e d concerning t h e n a t u r e of an account s t a t e d : 11 1 An account s t a t e d i s a new c o n t r a c t a r i s i n g o u t of an account e x i s t i n g betv~een t h e p a r t i e s - an a g r e e - ment t h a t t h e i t e m s of t h e account and t h e b a l a n c e s t r u c k a r e c o r r e c t , w i t h an agreement e x p r e s s o r imp]-ied f o r t h e payment o f such b a l a n c e . The c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e new c o n t r a c t i s t h e o r i g i n a l account (iiIartin v . !leiraze, 31 3Iont. G 8 , 77 P. 4 2 7 , ) o r speaking w i t h g r e a t e r e x a c t n e s s , t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s tlie s e t t l e m e n t of t h e o r i g i n a l accourrt (Johnson v . G a l l a t i n V a l l e y T2$illj-ng Co., 38 PIont. 8 3 , 98 P. 823) ' "The l a t e s t c a s e j-nvolving an account s t a t e d was I-loimes v. P o t t s , 132 Iiont. r177, 4 3 7 , 319 P.2d 232, 237, where t h i s c o u r t s a i d : rr 1~~ s t a t e an a c c o m t i s Po s u p p l a n t an o l d o l s l i g a t i o n w i t h a new. mx ~ l e must be ~ u t s u a la g r e e - ~ re ment based on mutual rinderstanding, f o r t ~ i t h o u t 1.ndcrstandi.ng t h e r e can h e no agreement. * ik* There can be no a c c o u n t i n g t o g e t h e r s o long a s e i t h c r p a r t y I" f a i l s t o unitertalce. Consent i s n o t n u t u a l , u n l e s s t h e p a r t i e s a l l a g r e e upon t h e same t h i n g i n t h e same s e n s e . " ?..C.>1. 1 9 6 7 , S c c t i o n 13-316. "Thcre musj- be t h e meeting of two s e p a r a t e and independent x i n d s ik.'' ?ordon Carnpfsell. P e trolettrn Co, v. Gordon Cai;lpbell-Kevj-n S y n d i c a t e , s u p r a , 7 5 :lent. a t page 269, 242 P. a ? page 541, "TO cstaFlLsh an account s t a t e d t h e r e must he a c o n t r a c t between t h e p a r t i e s , t h a t f-s, an e x p r e s s o r i ~ ~ p l i e d promise by thrr dcbr-or %sgt h e c r e d i t o r . f t 6 1 J i l l i s t o n , C o n t r a c t s (Rev.Ed.) $ 1862, P. 5 2 2 7 , c i t i n g Iloug11 v . Roclcy Zbuntai-n F i r e I n s . Co., 70 :\Ion:, 2 4 4 , 224 P. 358. 11 I r l A account s t a t e d presupposes an a b s o l u t e n ackcnowledgment o r admission of a c e r t a i n sum due, o r an adjustment of accounts between ~ h c a r t i e s , t h e p s t r i k i n g o f a b a l a n c e , and an a s s e n t , e x p r e s s o r i n - p l i e d , t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e b a l a n c e . I f tlze acknowledgment o r admission i s qual-if1ed, and n o t ahsolute * 2 9 t h c r e i s no account s t a t e d . ; I1 I Arn.Jur., Accounts and Accounting, 5 23, P. 277. !I I 7 ' ;k ; I ; A p a r t i a l s e t t l e m e n t of t h e a c c o u n t s -1- d\
w i t h o u t a r r i v i n g a t any h a l a n c e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o - c o n s t i t u t e an account s t a t e d . I 1 L C . J . S . Account S t a t e d , $ 9 25 and 26, pp. 704,705.' 17It i s apparent t h a t the s i n g l e indispensable i n g ~ e d i e n t i n an account s t a t e d i s an e x a c t , c e r t a i n and d e f r n i t e b a l a n c e a r r i v e d a t by t h e d e b t o r and c r e d i t o r . T h i s can b e s t be i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e c a s e where t h e r z i s an 1 e x p r e s s agreement' between t h e d e b t o r and c r e d i t o r . I n t h a t c a s e t h e law contenp1at:es t h a t t h e r e may be h a g g l i n g back and f o r t h , b u t t h a t e v e n t u a l l y a b a l a n c e may be s t r u c k which i s a g r e e a b l e t o b o t h p a r t i e s . iAk.cnt h e b a l a n c e i s agreed upon t h e r e i s a new c o n t r a c t i n t o which a l l p r i o r n e g o t i a - t i o n s a r e merged. I f a b a l a n c e could n o t be agreed upon t h e r e would n o t be an account s t a t e d , and any c a u s e o f a c t i o n would have t o be brought on t h e o r i g i n a l a c c o u n t s . i1 The f a c t s h e r e simply do n o t Lend themselves 20 t h e r u l e s
of law whTch have been e s t a b l i s h e d concerning an account s t a t e d .
The i n i t i a l d e a l i n g was between William Hanlon and L. P , Anderson. Kadon's f i r s t b i l l i n g d a t e d August 2 5 , 1963, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
account i s w i t h IIanlon D r i l l i n g Co., which i s s o l e l y owned by
William Hanlon. The second b i l l i n g d a t e d January 5 , 1965, one and one-half y e a r s l a t e r , i n d i c a t e s t o some e x t e n t t h a t t h e account i s
w i t h Melvyn L. Hanlon. F i n a l l y , William ~ a n l o n ' sl e t t e r of Izlarch
6 , 1971, i n d i c a t e s t h e account i s s o l e l y w i t h 'CJillLam Hanlon and i t s t a t e s the amount due a s b e i n g $1,750, n o t t h e amount s t a t e d
i n t h e complaint of $1,700.
There b e i n g no s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d t b l e evidence a p p e a r i n g , t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t an account s t a t e d was reached
i s i n error. Both b r i e f s argue a s t o t h e e q u i t i e s involved. W are not e impressed. W have examined t h e r e c o r d and f i n d t h e f i n d i n g s e
of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a r e n o t supported by t h e r e c o r d , and o r d e r t h e cause remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r an o r d e r
d i s m i s s i n g t h e complaint.
It i s so ordered.
................................... Associate J u s t i c e s . M r . J u s t i c e Haswell and M r . J u s t i c e Daly d i s s e n t i n g :
The function of t h i s Court i n reviewing f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n an a c t i o n t r i e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t without a j u r y i s con- f i n e d t o determining whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i - dence supporting such f i n d i n g s of f a c t . Section 93-216, R.C.M. 1947; S t a t e Highway Commission v. The West Great F a l l s Flood Control and Drainage D i s t r i c t , 155 Mont. 157, 468 P.2d 753 and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n ; Timmerman v. Gabriel, 155 Mont. 294, 470 P. 2d 528; Hornung v. E s t a t e of Lagerquist, 155 Mont. 412, 473 P.2d 541. Although t h e majority opinion g i v e s l i p s e r v i c e t o t h i s p r i n c i p l e , i n our opinion i t s conclusion t h a t t h e r e i s no sub- s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supporting t h e f i n d i n g s (1) t h a t t h e account was owed t o t h e p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon, and (2) t h a t t h e r e was an account s t a t e d , i s a t variance with t h e record a t the t r i a l . I n our view, t h e following s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supports t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e account was owed t o p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon, t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t : (1) William ~ a n l o n ' stestimony t h a t p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon owned t h e property a t t h e time of s a l e , (2) p l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t No. 2 showing an itemized b i l l i n g t o defendant of t h e property s o l d showing a t o t a l s m of $1700 owed t o p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon, a l l u without o b j e c t i o n o r d i s p u t e by defendant, (3) William ~ a n l o n ' s testimony i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was a c t i n g on behalf of p l a i n t i f f i n attempting t o c o l l e c t t h e amount. I n our view, t h e foregoing evidence plus t h e evidence of William Hanlon concerning defendant's i n t e n t i o n t o pay which i s quoted i n t h e majority opinion e s t a b l i s h e s an account s t a t e d a s found by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . While it is true that the district court might have found otherwise depending on which of the witnesses it believed and which of the witnesses' testimony it determined to be more reliable, the district court is the trier of the facts and this Court is not, in our opinion, Where, as here, the testimony of witnesses is conflicting, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is a matter for the trial court's determination, Eliason v. Eliason, 151 Mont. 409, 443 P.2d 884; Ballenger v. Tillman, 133 Mont. 369, 324 P.2d 1045; Notti v, Clark, 133 Mont, 263, 322 P.2d 112, This Court on appeal must abide by the trial court's determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Eliason v, Eliason, supra; Hammond v. Knievel, 141 Mont, 433, 378 P,2d 388; Havre Irrigation Co. v, Majerus, 132 Mont. 410, 318 P.2d 1076. Con- versely, it.is not the function of this Court on appeal to make an independent determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony; arrive at a contrary conclusion to that of the district court; and thus conclude that the trial court's findings lack substantiation, thereby reversing the district court's judgment and dismissing the case. This Court recently indicated the reasons underlying this principle in a unanimous opinion refusing to interfere with the trial court's determination of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony in a nonjury case, Eliason v, Eliason, 151 Mont. 409, 416, 443 P,2d 884: 11The trial court, having observed and considered the
appearance of the witnesses upon the witness stand, their manner of testifying, their apparent candor or want of candor, in addition to the testimony itself, is in a better position than this Court to decide questions of credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony,'' In our view, the majority here has made an independent determination of the credibility of plaintiff's principal witness, William Hanlon, and the weight to be given his testimony; has concluded contrary to the district court that his credibility is lacking and no weight should be given his testimony; has set aside the findings of the district court accordingly; and has reversed the judgment and dismissed the case, leaving the defendant with $1700 worth of plaintiff's property which he has had for nine years and for which he has not paid one cent. For these reasons, we dissent from the majority opinion herein and would affirm the judgment of the district court.
Associate Justices. /