Case Title: HOLLAND CONSTR CO v LAMPSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12676

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12676 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 74 H O L L A N D CONSTRUCTION C O M P A N Y , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - NEIL F. L A M P S O N , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Evalyn B. Carson argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, Billings, Montana Ward Swanser argued, Billings, Montana Filed : - - - Submitted: November 14, 1974 Decided: DEC 1 0 1974 M r . Justice John C. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment adverse t o p l a i n t i f f entered i n the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County. The matter was t r i e d by the court s i t t i n g without a jury. Plaintiff Holland Construction Company, Inc. alleged an indebtedness t o it by defendant N e i l F. Lampson, Inc. for labor, parts and materials furnished on the repair of equipment owned by Lampson. On appeal, p l a i n t i f f Holland brings three issues: 1. Is there substantial evidence t o support the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the t r i a l judge who found that the reasonable value of the services of Holland Construction Co. was $18,292.45? 2. Did the t r i a l court err i n refusing t o allow any testimony offered by p l a i n t i f f ? 3. Was the court correct i n applying the rule that plaintiff was entitled to recover only the reasonable value of the services performed? Holland alleged that Lampson was indebted t o Holland for $33,557.82. Lampson i n its answer admitted certain work was per- formed on i t s equipment; that there was no contract between the parties f o r the work performed; and therefore Holland was entitled t o recover only for reasonable services rendered. The t r i a l court found the amount owed Holland t o be $18,292.45. Prior t o submission of i t s statement for the t o t a l cost of the repair work t o the Lampson crane there was no discussion of the t o t a l cost, or hourly cost f o r the work done between the parties, unless i t could be said t h a t ~ o l l a n d ' s statement that the shop was I t competitive i n the area", was a discussion of cost. The work took approximately 30 days of shop work. When the statement was submitted t o Lampson, it was considered exorbitant and Lampson refused t o pay. Holland alleges it is entitled t o recover for a l l time spent by its s t a f f of thirteen employees, plus office s t a f f , spent on the job. Lampson alleges the work could have been performed i n f a r l e s s t i m e and that Holland i s only entitled t o recover for the reasonable number of hours it would take t o perform the job. A t t r i a l Holland introduced time cards t o show the number of hours worked by its personnel t o establish what was a reasonable hourly figure. N o other testimony was introduced t o support the reasonableness of the statement submitted. A problem arose as t o the t i m e cards i n that they w e r e discredited because of the manner i n which they were kept and the obvious errors which appeared on the face of the cards. One difficulty was t h a t due t o the inclement weather the time clock froze and had t o be repaired. Another was that the workers were supposed t o keep t h e i r job time allocated t o the various jobs they worked on during the day, but when the cards were checked the t i m e s written i n on the various cards ap- peared t o be i n only one person's handwriting. A s a r e s u l t , the t r i a l court rejected the time card evidence a s proof of reason- ableness of the t o t a l job cost inasmuch a s Holland offered no other explanation for the time required t o perform the work on the crane. In an e f f o r t t o ascertain a proper figure for the amount owed Holland, the court viewed ~ o l l a n d ' s machine shop operation; checked the crane i t s e l f t o determine the work performed; and, a f t e r so doing concluded the time charged was excessive, although it accepted ~ o l l a n d ' s figures on the proper hourly charge. Lampson introduced a s a witness one Draper, i t s foreman, who was present when most of the work was done. Draper t e s t i f i e d that 80% of the work was done on the crane within ten days, a f t e r about 313 man hours. The b i l l submitted showed 1300 man hours. Lampson also introduced the testimony of an expert, one Peterson from an independent machine shop i n Portland, Oregon, who t e s t i f i e d a s to, i n h i s opinion,the number of hours reasonable t o do the worksre- quired. Lampson introduced other testimony t o support Peterson's testimony and compared the number of hours charged by Holland with hours charged by other machine shops for similar work. Appellant ~olland's first issue questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and con- clusions of law. This Court has long held that it will uphold a trial court's findings unless the evidence decidedly and with decisive clarity predominates against them, Christensen v . Hunt, 147 Mont. 484, 414 P . 2 d 648. Further, we have held that in reviewing the record in the trial court it is not within our province to determine whether we agree with the conclusions reached if they are supported by the evidence. Stromberg & Brown v . Seaton Ranch Co., 160 Mont. 293, 502 P . 2 d 41; Hellickson v . Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc., 161 Mont. 455, 507 P.2d 523; Nissen v . Western Const. Equip. Co., 133 Mont, 143, 320 P . 2d 997, The question here is whether Holland has shown there was an insufficiency of evidence to support the judgment. We find appellant failed to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court's findings ( 1 ) by failing to introduce evidence to support the reasonableness of the hours charged to the Lampson job, and ( 2 ) that Lampson's witnessesf testimony supports the court ' s findings. As noted heretofore, the validity of the time cards was questioned and at best they only show the number of hours charged to the job and not the hours necessary to accomplish it, Holland totally failed to show by the time cards the number of hours necessary or reasonable to perform the work. The only real evidence before the trial court to assist in determining the reasonable number of hours to do the necessary work was introduced by amps son's witness Peterson, who testified without objection. Peterson was qualified,through years of experience in bidding on similar jobs, to testify on the reason- able number of hours necessary to accomplish the work performed by Holland. His testimony took into consideration the type of work, Holland's equipment, and the new parts used. He inspected the work done on the crane and testified he could have done the same work, using new parts, for $12,750. However, he testified that in ~olland's shop, without using new parts used by Holland, and doing the same work that Holland did, that the reasonable number of hours, using ~olland's charges per hour, would bring the amount due to $16,172.66. peterson's testimony was substantiated by Lampson by introducing bills for similar work done in other areas and by foreman Draper's testimony. We find no merit in issue one. Issue two concerns appellant's allegation that the trial court erred in not allowing certain testimony offered by appellant. This refused testimony was evidence attempted to be introduced through two witnesses, Clarence Merry and John Bus tell, concerning the reasonableness of the charge per hour. Merry was the owner of the Yellowstone Hydraulics & Elevator Co., and had been a working machinist for 24 years. Bustell was one of the owners of Billings Machine & Welding Co., and had been a working machinist for over 30 years. When Merry was asked if he had an opinion with regard to the number of hours charged, the testimony was objected to on the grounds a proper foundation was not laid, and none was laid after the objection. However, ~olland's attorney later clarified what she was trying to get from the witness by these questions: " Q . Your Honor, I believe that Igave the wrong impression. I was only asking him for the hourly rate for that type of work, if you will recall.'' And later: " Q . I realize that you would not know the number of hours and therefore the total bill. I only ask you to testify as to the reasonableness of the charge per hour for the particular operation on the particular piece of equipment. I t The testimony was to go to the hourly rate which was not dis- puted, but could not, as Holland desired, be considered when applied to the hours of the total job. The second witness Bustell was merely asked if he concurred with the testimony given by Merry as to the reasonableness of the hourly rate, and was never asked to comment upon the number of hours it took to do the job. The t r i a l court had already admitted a l l of ~ o l l a n d ' s exhibits t o support the hourly charge and used them i n its findings, con- clusions and judgment. W e find no merit i n appellant's issue two. Issue three considers whether the court was correct i n applying the rule Holland was entitled t o recover only the reasonable value of services performed. Considering the facts the correct and controlling law applicable is section 13-507, R.C.M. 1947, which provides : "When a contract does not determine the amount of the consideration, nor the method by which it i s t o be ascertained, o r when i t leaves the amount thereof t o the discretion of an interested party, the consideration must be so much money a s the ob'ect of the contract is reasonably worth. (Emp&added). While a case applying the above quoted statutory provisions has not been previously considered i n t h i s jurisdiction, other jurisdictions have applied it. Braden Winch Company v. Surface Equipment Company, 196 Okla. 444, 165 P.2d 640; Hawkins v. Delta Spindle of Blytheville, Inc., 245 Ark. 830, 434 S.W.2d 825, 827. In Hawkins, the court noted: ''Where labor or material i s furnished by a party and no price i s agreed upon, the law w i l l imply an agree- ment t o pay what it i s worth. [Citing case.] I f a contract makes no statement a s t o the price t o be paid for services, the l a w invokes the standard of reason- ableness and the f a i r value of the services i s recoverable. [Citing cases and authority.] This principle has been applied by t h i s court i n cases involving professional services. [Citing cases.] There is no reason why it should not be applied i n the circumstances existing here. The burden was upon appellee t o show that the amount for which it sought recovery was the f a i r and reasonable value of the parts, materials and labor furnished. It failed t o do so. I 1 In Hawkins the court considered the fact that the work was stretched over a three day period of t i m e when it could have been done i n one day. The same principle of law has been covered by 11 contract cases quantum m e r i t " i n a series of cases before t h i s Court. Higby v. Hooper, 124 Mont. 331, 221 P.2d 1043; Smith v. Gunniss, 115 Mont. 362, 144 P.2d 186. The burden is upon plaintiff t o show what i s the reasonable value of the parts, materials and labor furnished. Here, Holland relied solely on the t i m e cards t o establish the reasonableness of the services. However, there was sufficient evidence t o refute t h e i r accuracy, and Holland offered no evidence t o justify the t o t a l hours or t o show that they were required t o accomplish the work. In Delaware Engineering Co. v. Pusey & Jones Co., 31 Del. 163, 112 A. 371, the court noted that where one person engages another t o make an a r t i c l e for him, and the person employed is t o be paid by the hour for the work, it i s the duty of that person t o furnish the work on the a r t i c l e i n a reasonable number of hours, and i f the person engaged takes unreasonable time t o complete the work, he i s entitled t o be compensated for only such t i m e a s would reasonably have been required t o do the work. W e find no m e r i t i n appellant's issue three. The judgment of the t r i a l court i s affirmed. W e Concur: M r . Justice Frank I. Haswell took no part i n the above Opinion.