KOSTBADE v BUCKINGHAM

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14370 IN THE SUPREME COUEiT OF THE STATE OF MONJ!ANA 1978 HOWARD KOSTBADE, Plaintiff and Appllant, -vs- laxrLxE BucKlxHAM, Defendant ard Wspndent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Jack Shanstrm, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: .- For Appellant: Longan and Holmstroan, Billings, Wntana For Respondent: Anderson, Symnes, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, Billings, b!kmtana SuSHnitted on briefs: Decided: Filed: JAN 1$ 1979 d-f Clerk Nv o* JAN 3, 1978 18 1979 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment on a b r e a c h of cont r a c t c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e f e e d i n g of c a t t l e . T r i a l was h e l d o n F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1978, b e f o r e t h e Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom, s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r teenth Judicial District. The c o u r t f i l e d i t s 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 o f l a w on March 29, 1978, and ment f o r p l a i n t i f f i n t h e amount of $1,712.69 e n t e r e d on A p r i l 25, 1978. a judg- plus costs was P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s t h e judgment inasmuch a s h e s o u g h t judgment i n t h e amount of $4,690.26. P l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t owns a commercial f e e d l o t n e a r L a u r e l , Montana, which i s managed and o p e r a t e d by A 1 Herden, a c o p a r t n e r . During e a r l y November 1976, d e f e n d a n t - r e s p o n d e n t c o n t a c t e d Herden w i t h r e g a r d t o f e e d i n g a number of r e s p o n d e n t ' s c a l v e s d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r months of 1976-77. As a r e s u l t of t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , r e s p o n d e n t , who l i v e s i n t h e White S u l p h u r S p r i n g s , Montana, area, t r a v e l e d t o L a u r e l and d i s c u s s e d w i t h Herden, a s a g e n t f o r a p p e l l a n t , t h e v a r i o u s t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s of t h e f e e d i n g o p e r a t i o n . A t that time Herden and r e s p o n d e n t e n t e r e d i n t o a n o r a l c o n t r a c t f o r t h e f e e d i n g of r e s p o n d e n t ' s c a t t l e . Pursuant t o t h e o r a l c o n t r a c t respondent delivered t o t h e L a u r e l f e e d l o t 109 head of steers on November 1 9 , 1976; 1 2 head of s t e e r s and 77 head of h e i f e r s on November 23, 1976; and 46 head o f h e i f e r s and 7 1 head of s t e e r s on December 31, 1976. On December 11, 1976, 88 head of steers w e r e s o l d from t h e f e e d l o t and t h e r e m a i n i n g c a t t l e w e r e removed on J a n u a r y 26, 1977. The 88 head o f steers s o l d from t h e f e e d l o t w e r e t h e b e t t e r c a t t l e , and many of them had been on t h e f e e d l o t o n l y a p e r i o d of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 d a y s . I n t h e l i f e of t h e c o n t r a c t r e s p o n d e n t was b i l l e d f o r a p p e l l a n t ' s s e r v i c e s i n f e e d i n g h i s c a t t l e on a semi-monthly basis. s ills f o r t h e p e r i o d s ending November 30, December 1 5 , and December 31, 1976, t o t a l i n g $5,048.57 were p a i d by respondent without p r o t e s t . When r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d t h e s e b i l l s he a l s o r e c e i v e d a breakdown showing t h e t o t a l weight and c o s t of each f e e d i n g r e d i e n t which was f e d t o h i s c a t t l e f o r t h a t period. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a f e e d s t a t e m e n t and b i l l f o r t h e p e r i o d ending J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1977, r e s p o n d e n t c a l l e d and t h e n went t o L a u r e l on January 25 t o o b t a i n a check weight on h i s c a t t l e , b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e y could n o t p o s s i b l y have consumed t h e amount of f e e d f o r which he had been charged f o r t h a t period. There was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n between Herden and respondent a t t h a t time. Respondent a l l e g e d t h a t t h e amount charged, by h i s f i g u r e s over 90$ p e r cow, v i o l a t e d t h e i r agreement. 45$ p e r head. Herden f i g u r e d t h e c o s t a s approximately According t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s t e s t i m o n y , when h i s w i f e f i r s t c a l l e d t h e f e e d l o t and when he f i r s t t a l k e d t o Herden, t h e y had been a s s u r e d t h a t t h e c o s t would n o t be above 36g! p e r pound of g a i n . This a l l e g e d a s s u r a n c e on t h e p a r t of Herden was t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s which a r o s e , and a t t h e end of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n on t h e 2 5 t h , r e s p o n d e n t decided t o remove h i s c a t t l e from a p p e l l a n t ' s feedlot. Respondent t h e n made arrangements f o r t r u c k s t o remove t h e c a t t l e from a p p e l l a n t ' s f e e d l o t and t a k e them t o a n o t h e r f e e d l o t i n t h e same a r e a . A f t e r t h e removal of approximately two l o a d s of c a t t l e , Herden would n o t p e r m i t respondent t o remove any more c a t t l e u n t i l t h e t o t a l b i l l was p a i d . Respondent i s s u e d a check made o u t t o a p p e l l a n t i n t h e amount of $4,690.26. T h i s check was t e n d e r e d t o Herden and t h e remaining c a t t l e removed from t h e f e e d l o t . Shortly t h e r e a f t e r r e s p o n d e n t stopped payment on t h e check. He l a t e r t e n d e r e d t o a p p e l l a n t a check i n t h e amount of $2,180.16, t h e amount he a l l e g e d was o r would have been due a p p e l l a n t a t t h e r a t e of 366 p e r pound of g a i n . n e g o t i a t e d by a p p e l l a n t . This check was n o t I n h i s s u i t a p p e l l a n t sought t h e t o t a l amount of $4,690.26. The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and judgment a r e s u b s t a n t i a t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., states i n pertinent part: " F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h a l l n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and due r e g a r d s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s . " This C o u r t , i n d e s c r i b i n g i t s f u n c t i o n i n reviewing t h e 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 of a D i s t r i c t Court s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , h a s many times s e t f o r t h t h e f o l l o w i n g : ... "This C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n i s not t o substitute i t s judgment i n p l a c e of t h e t r i e r of f a c t s , b u t r a t h e r i t i s ' c o n f i n e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g 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 evidence t o s u p p o r t ' t h e 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. ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) Although c o n f l i c t s m a y e x i s t - -e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , it i s t h e d u t y i n th and f u n c t i o n of - t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e such e -f l i c t s . H- t hn d i n g s w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d i s fi con on a p p e a l where t h e y a r e based on s u b s t a n t i a l though c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) " Olson v. Westfork P r o p e r t i e s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 171 Mont. 154, 557 P.2d 821, 823, 33 St.Rep. 1133, 1135. (Emphasis added. ) The Court t h e n went on t o d e f i n e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence: " S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e h a s been d e f i n e d by t h i s Court a s such a s w i l l convince r e a s o n a b l e men and on which such men may n o t r e a s o n a b l y d i f f e r a s t o whether it e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e , and, i f a l l r e a s o n a b l e men must conclude t h a t t h e e v i dence does n o t e s t a b l i s h such c a s e , t h e n it i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. The e v i d e n c e may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l be deemed ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' , and one w i t n e s s may be s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e (Citations omitted.)" preponderance of a c a s e . Olson, 557 P.2d a t 823, 33 St.Rep. a t 1136. With t h e above g u i d e l i n e s i n mind, we n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t a p p e l l a n t met t h e burden of proving t h e t e r m s he c l a i m s t o have comprised the contract. Respondent denied having agreed t o pay a p r i c e p e r pound of g a i n i n e x c e s s of 36$. The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r e w r i t e t h e c o n t r a c t between a p p e l l a n t and respond e n t ; i t simply found from t h e testimony t h a t a p p e l l a n t through h i s a g e n t and respondent e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l c o n t r a c t and agreed t h a t t h e maximum p r i c e p e r pound of g a i n would n o t exceed 36$ p e r pound. The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o determined t h a t t h e amount charged by a p p e l l a n t d i d i n f a c t exceed t h e maximum p r i c e of 366 p e r pound of g a i n and awarded judgment t o a p p e l l a n t i n t h e amount e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e agreed upon p r i c e of 36$ p e r pound of g a i n a f t e r d e d u c t i n g monies p r e v i o u s l y p a i d by respondent. A p p e l l a n t r e c o g n i z e s t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court i n reviewing t h e 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 of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Yet, a f t e r r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a u t h o r i t y , he d e n i e s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s show a c l e a r preponderance of evidence. A t t h e v e r y most, a l l t h a t can be s a i d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s t h a t t h e evidence was conflicting. I n attacking t h e c o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t the o r a l c o n t r a c t between t h e p a r t i e s c o n t a i n e d a maximum c o s t p e r pound of g a i n of 362, a p p e l l a n t sets f o r t h t h e testimony of r e s p o n d e n t g i v e n on cross-examination. However, on d i r e c t examination, respondent d i d t e s t i f y t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s a g e n t Herden t o l d him t h a t t h e "maximum would be 366 p e r pound." I n a d d i t i o n r e s p o n d e n t ' s w i f e t e s t i f i e d s h e was concerned a b o u t t h e c o s t of f e e d i n g c a t t l e i n a commercial f e e d l o t and t e s t i f i e d t h a t on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s Herden a d v i s e d h e r t h e maximum c o s t would n o t exceed 362 p e r pound. The t r i a l c o u r t , i n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , found t h e maximum t o be 366 p e r pound, t h e f i g u r e i t found Herden used i n a d v i s i n g respondent. Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t erred i n i t s award of $1,712.69 p l u s c o s t s i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t had t e n d e r e d a payment of $2,800 t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t . However, t h i s tendered o f f e r of r e s p o n d e n t , r e f u s e d by a p p e l l a n t , was merely t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t between t h e parties. W f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e sum a r r i v e d a t by t h e e t r i a l c o u r t i n f i x i n g t h e $1,712.69 f i g u r e . The weight of t h e evidence and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s , where t h a t evidence was c o n f l i c t i n g , was a matter f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s determination. W f i n d no e c l e a r preponderance of evidence a g a i n s t i t s f i n d i n g s . Judgment i s a f f i r m e d . W Concur: e \,J

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.