Case Title: HANLON v ANDERSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12264 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 M E L V Y N M A N L O N , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, L. P. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Sixteenth 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 : Lucas, J a r d i n e and Monaghan, Miles City, Montana, Thomas M, Monaghan argued, Miles City, Montana, For Respondent : Ask and P r a t t , Roundup, Montana, John L. P r a t t argued, Roundup, Montana. Submitted: September 22, 1972 Filed: qt";f 1 c 1972 hIr. J u s t i c e Wesley Cast-les delivered the 3pinion of the Court. This i s an appeal. from a judgment Tor p l a i n t i f f entcrecl upon findings of f a c t and conclusions of law a f t e r t r i a l by the court without a jury i n the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Custer. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s action against defendan? f o r equip- ment sold and delivered t o defendant on August 25, 1963, The amount of tlhe judgment was $1,700, The ultimate issue here i s whether there i s substanti-a1 credible evidence t o support the rulings of the d i s t r i c t court and i t s findings and conclusions. The three separate issues a r e s e t out l a t e r , but we approach the issues with an attempt a t s e t t i n g f o r t h the 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 did not appear a t the t r i a l . Wjlliam Hanlon, father of p l a i n t i f f , appeared and supplied a l l the testimony on behalf of the p l a i n t i f f concerning the s a l e of the equipment. William EIanlon had been i n the o i l business most of h i s l i f e and operated a s the Hanlon Drilling Co. I n 1963 he was a l s o the manager of Petro Fuel Refining Company. During t h a t period, Hanlon, father of p l a i n t i f f , purchased t i r e s from the L.P. Ander- son Tire Co.Inc., . a fifontana corporation, of which L. P. Anderson, defendant herein, i s president. The t i r e s were b i l l e d t o Hanlon Drilling Co., a business name of William Hanlon. The same William Hanlon was general manager, but not owner, of Petro Fuel Refining Company. The same William HanLon directed the t i r e company t o b i l l Petro Fuel f o r the 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 time, one contractor's Service, Inc. purchased some r e a l property near Eillings. This r e a l property had been the "yard s i t e " of Hanlon Drilling Co. and owned by William Hanlon. Somehow, unexplained i n the record, the 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's request 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's version 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: "~rilling Contractor "Sold to I 1 L. P, Anderson "Miles City, Montana Billings,Montana August 25, 1963 I 1 In Account with "HRI\JLON DRILLING CO. ''120 North 30th Street "BOX 1724 "~illings , Montana "1 - Hydraulic 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 - Free Roll 'For ruck' 50.00 "Gas Tanks and Pump 350.00 "Total $1700.00" About a year and one h a l f l a t e r , on January 5 , 1965, another b i l l i n g was mad-e: "Drilling Contractor 1 I L.P. Anderson " ~ l i l e s City, Montana B i l l i n g s , Montana January 5 , 1965 I I In account with " H A N L O N DRILLING CO . "120 North 30th S t r e e t "BOX 1724 " ~ i l l i n g s , Plontana I t Due : Melvyn L. Han.lon "8125163- One Hydraulic P u l l e r Complete $250.00 "One 7 1 ! 4 x 18 Oilwell Pump 450.00 "One Shop Lathe 600.00 "One Free Roll f o r Truckbed 50.00 "Yard Underground Gas Pumps & Tanks 350.00 "TOTAL DUE lELVYN L. H A N L C N $1,700.00" Here, f o r the f i r s t time, the name of t h e p l a i n t i f f , Melvyn Hanlon, appears. William Hanlon had never informed anyme of ~ e l v ~ n ' s s t a t u s . L.P. Anderson had never m e t nor d e a l t with M e lvyn . 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 Custer County. P l a i n t i f f through h i s then attorney of record w a s informed by M r . Anderson's a t t o r n e y t h a t the a c t i o n should be against L.P. Anderson T i r e Co., r a t h e r than Ander- son personally. I n December 1966, then counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f asked defendant's counsel t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t t h e t i r e company could be s u b s t i t u t e d a s a defendant. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s counsel i n a l e t t e r dated January 2, 1967, did so s t i p u l a t e . However, p l a i n t i f f never did amend t h e complaint t o include the corporate defendant. The matter l a y dormant from 1967 u n t i l 1971. O n March 6, 1971, William Hanlon wrote the following l e t t e r : l'Efr. Sam Ohnstad "Secretary & Treasurer of L.P. Anderson Companies "BOX 190 "Miles City Montana 59301 I t Dear M r . Ohnstad: I I In reply t o yours of January 15, 1971, I wish t o remind you, t h a t t h i s Lathe was included along with other Equipment, which I sold t o L.P. Anderson f o r the sum of $ 1750.00, which amount i s s t i l l due m e and must be paid t o me. Which means t h a t I claim no r i g h t s i n the Lathe and so f a r a s I a m concerned, you own i t and can do as you wish it. 11 In the past several years and when the Lathe was inside and out of the Weather, I was approched several times, by persons interested i n purchasing same and i n each i n s t a n t , I informed them t h a t , it belonged t o L.P. ANDERSON, k t t h i s time I am sure t h a t it could have been sold f o r several times the amount you a r e now, being offered, I 1 Surely you must be acquainted with f a c t t h a t the other Equipment which I sold t o Anderson has been sold by you and apparently there was no doubt on your p a r t a s t o ownership, which i s c o r r e c t , since you had purchased same from m e and 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 the only piece of Equipment l e f t on the premises. "I do owe L.P.Anderson Tire Company the sum of $150.00 which, I plan t o pay j u s t a s soon a s I receive payment of the $ 1750.00 due me. I I I have been informed t h a t you a r e trying t o charge m e with the account of Petro Fuel Refining Company, a Corpora- t i o n , who employed m e as t h e i r General Pfanager, t h i s account I understand i s around $1500.00 You surely remember t h a t on occasions previously, Petro had paid t h e i r account with the t i r e Company, by exchanging Diesel Fuel a s payment and you surely must remember t h a t Petro t r i e d t o get you t o take Diesel and clean up the a c c o ~ ~ n t , on several occasions. I I I stopped t o see L.P. i n regard t o paying m e f o r the Equipment, a t which time, he told you i n my presence t o issue m e a check. You i n turn, said you could not do it a t t h i s time and t h a t I could expect it l a t e r . A t t h i s same time I mentioned tha? Petro would l i k e t o pay up t h e i r account, by delivering some of t h e i r Diesel i n an amount sufficent t o clean up t h e i r account, t h i s was nothing new as it had been handled t h i s way before. 11 A t no t i - m e did I ever agree or intimate, t h a t I w a s responsih1.c f o r any Petro purchases and I a m sure t h a t a t t h a t time, you preferred Petro's c r e d t t t o !lanLonls. I t I agree wTth you that t h i s sho~lld be straightened out and can be, by j u s t paying m e f o r t h e Equtpment ($1750). Subsequently t r i a l was had on December 14, 1971, ijithollt a jury. The court made t h e following findings of f a c t and conclusions "FL$?DINGS OF FACT ÿ hat on o r about the 25th day of August, 1963, P l a i n t i f f was the owner of the foLlowj.ng described property: "I 7rP~drauli.c Puller, complete "1 7 l / 4 : E 3-8 O i l Tvdell Pump "1. Shop Lache "I Free Roll or ~ r u c l c ' Red I I Underground gas tanlts and pumps "That or, or about the 25th day of hagust, 1963, William Sanlon, the P l a i n t i f f f s f a t h e r , accing on behalf of- the Plaintyiff, entered j-nto an agreement with L. I ? . Anderson, the Defendant, whereby the Defendant agreed. t o pay $1,700.00 f o r tlls ahove descrLbed property. I I That possession and ot~mcrship of t5e above described propcrty passed t o the Defendant a t the time of the sale. 11 That on o r about the 25th clay of August, 1963, some of the above described property was renoved fron i t s location a t Che t i m e of the sale. hat a f t e r August 25, 1963, P l a i n t j f f never aga-in enjoyed the use or possession of the above described property. "VI "That Defendant was b i l l e d f o r the ahove described property on August 25, 1963, and again i n 1965. The b i l l whiclz was sent t o the Defendant i n 1965 c l e a r l y indicated t h a t the sale price f o r the property was owed t o Melvyn Hanlon, the P l a i n t i f f herein, f r ~ r ~ 1 "That Defendant retained each statement which was sent t o him and f a i l e d t o object t o the correctness of the statements or t o the existence of the debt prior t o the f i l i n g of t h i s action i n October of 1966. " V I I I f l That Defendant ignored a l l requests f o r payment and f a i l e d t o make any payments on said accoumt. - 6 - f f ~ ~ ~ OF LAW '%?HEREFORE on the b a s i s of the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court conclu.des as a matter of law a s follov~s: "1, That the Defendant herein entered i n t o a contract with William Hanlon, who was acting f o r and on behalf of the P l a i n t i f f x~hereby the Defendant agreed t o purchase one hydraulic p u l l e r , complete, one 7 1/4 x 18 o i l well pump, one shop l a t h e , one f r e e r o l l for truck bed, and underground gas tanks and pumps, f o r a t o t a l price of $1.,700.00, "2, That the Defendant was furnished with the above de- scribed property and was periodically billed f o r the sales price of $1,700.00. "3. That ~ e f e n d a n t ' s retention without objection t o the above mentioned statements created an account stated whereby Defendant owes P l a i n t i f f the sum of $1,700.00. ''4, That there i s now due and owing the P l a i n t i f f by the Defendant the sum of $1,700.00, said sum being the s a l e s price, plus i n t e r e s t thereon a t the r a t e of s i x percent (6%) per annum together with p l a i n t i f f ' s costs and disbursements of s u i t . " The issues on appeal a r e : 1. laxether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n not dismissing the action because the p l a i n t i f f was not the r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t and further erred in finding t h a t p l a i n t i f f was the owner of the equipment i n question on hlugust 25, 1963. 2. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t court erred i n finding t h a t the transaction between Wil-liam Hanlon and L. P. Anderson was one i n which L. P. Anderson was dealing i n h i s individual capacity, 3. Wl-tether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n finding t h a t an accotrnt s t a t e d existed between the p l a i n t i f f and defendant. Heretofore w e have attempted t o s e t out the f a c t s giving r i s e t o t h i s case. W e say attempted, because the t r i a l was so incomplete and the testimony of William Hanlon so inconsistent, 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 e have a l s o s e t out several exhibits showing the Hanlon Drilling Co, as the owner of ehe equipment i n question on the date of the sale. Yet Melvyn, who had nothing t o do with Hanlon Drilling Co, who had never d e a l t with Anderson, who had never been revealed by h i s f a t h e r , who did not appear a t the t r i a l , who had no docu- mentary b a s i s for any claim other than the b i l l i n g of January 5 , 1965, appears with an account stated, according t o the conclusions of law. IJilliam Hanlon's l e t t e r of March 6, 1871, claims ownership of the 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 against $1700 when HanLon Drilling Os b i l l e d Anderson i n August 1963. In h i s testimony William E-lanlon claimed that h i s son Melvyn owned the equipment i n August 1963 by v i r t u e of some kind of a g i f t from William t o Melvyn, sometime p r i o r . William Iianlon did not produce any documentary evidence of any t r a n s f e r s between himself and ?Ielvyn. As he explained a t one point, If;': -" " r\ The son and I a r e f a t h e r and son and we don't have t o go i n t o a l o t of I I paperwork t o protect one another. Subsequent t o the s a l e of the equipment, he claimed h i s son gave him, the f a t h e r , the r i g h t t o c o l l e c t the amount. This o r a l testimony i s f l a t l y disputed by the documents, including the l e t t e r heretofore s e t f o r t h dated March 6, 1971, A t one point i n the testimony, a f t e r the introduction of the two b i l l i n g s a s exhibits, William Hanlon had t h i s t o say: "Q. Did you ever receive any response from L.P. Anderson i n regard t o these statements t h a t you sent t o him? "A. I stopped here i n Miles City a t h i s Yard, and I waited while he was busy with some of h i s employees, and a s soon a s he was free, I asked him i f I could get a check f o r t h i s equipment. H e said, 'Let's go over I t o the office. and a s I remember, he put h i s band on m y shoulder, o r on m y arm, and we went over t o the 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 said, 'we don't t ---we can't do it now. So when I walked out, L.ge said i t would probably ---said he rvoul-d probably give/a check i n a couple weeks. 1 3 The relationship of t h i s testimony t o the 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 the owner of the equipmnt. Cl-early, from a l l of the credible testimony, substantiated i n any way, William Iianlon was the r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t . This was challenged by motion promptl-y and a t a l l times, N o showing of compliance with section 29-208, R.C.N. 1947, was attempted o r made. The c o u r t ' s finding of f a c t No. 2 i s not borne out by the record, and i t s conclusion of law No. 1 i s incorrect. Wiliiam ~ a n l o n ' s testimony was inconsistent a t every stage. Even i f h i s testimony i n regards 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 the s a l e was believed, a t the time the s u i t was f i l e d he t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s son had given him the account so t h a t i n any event h i s son 1-Ielvyn was not the r e a l party i n i n t e r e s t , M.R,Civ, P , , Rule 17(a). The second i s s u e w i l l not be discussed, but i n passing wc do observe t h a t the testimony was conflicting. This second issue i s not important t o the resolution of the case, because i f Melvyn i s not the proper party it m~kes no difference. The t h i r d issue a s t o an account stated w i l l be discussed within the context of the exhibits and testimony previously s e t forth. While William Hanon t e s t i f i e d t h a t he met with L.P.Anderson, Melvyn never did meet, correspond, or i n any way enter i n t o a new agreement with L.P, Anderson. The only connection 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, heretofore s e t out. This invoice was on William Hanlon's letterhead, disputed by SJilliam ~ a n l o n ' s own l e t t e r of l a t e r date; and does not amount t o the substantial credible evidence required by law. I n Iqelson v. 'I.lontana Iron Mining Conpany, 140 Mont. 331,334, 371 P.2d 874, the law i n Montana has been explained concerning the nature of an account s t a t e d : 1 1 1 A n account s t a t e d i s a new contract a r i s i n g out of an account existing betv~een the p a r t i e s - an agree- ment t h a t the items of the account and the balance struck are correct, with an agreement express or imp]-ied f o r t h e payment of such balance. The consideration for the new contract i s the original account (iiIartin v. !leiraze, 31 3Iont. G8, 77 P. 427,) or speaking with greater exactness, the consideration i s tlie settlement of the o r i g i n a l accourrt (Johnson v. Gallatin Valley T2$illj-ng Co., 38 PIont. 83, 98 P. 823) ' "The l a t e s t case j-nvolving an account stated was I-loimes v. Potts, 132 Iiont. r177, 437, 319 P.2d 232, 237, where t h i s court said: r r 1~~ s t a t e an accomt i s P o supplant an old mx olsligation w i t h a new. ~ ~ l e r e must be ~utsual agree- ment based on mutual rinderstanding, f o r t ~ i t h o u t 1.ndcrstandi.ng there can he no agreement. * ik * There can be no accounting together so long a s e i t h c r party I " f a i l s t o unitertalce. Consent i s not nutual, unless the p a r t i e s a l l agree upon the same thing i n the same sense." ?..C.>1. 1 9 6 7 , Scction 13-316. "Thcre musj- be the meeting of two separate and independent xinds i k . ' ' ?ordon Carnpfsell. Pe trolettrn Co, v. Gordon Cai;lpbell-Kevj-n Syndicate, supra, 75 :lent. a t page 269, 242 P. a? page 541, "TO cstaFlLsh an account s t a t e d there must he a contract between the p a r t i e s , t h a t f-s, an express or i ~ ~ p l i e d f t promise by thrr dcbr-or %sg the creditor. 6 1Jilliston, Contracts (Rev.Ed.) $ 1862, P. 5 2 2 7 , c i t i n g Iloug11 v. Roclcy Zbuntai-n F i r e Ins. Co., 70 :\Ion:, 244, 224 P. 358. 1 1 I r l A n account stated presupposes an absolute ackcnowledgment or admission of a c e r t a i n sum due, o r an adjustment of accounts between ~ h c p a r t i e s , the s t r i k i n g o f a balance, and an assent, express o r in- plied, t o the correctness of the balance. I f tlze acknowledgment or admission i s qual-if1ed, and not I 1 ahsolute * 2 9 ; thcre i s no account stated. I Arn.Jur., Accounts and Accounting, 5 23, P. 277. ! I I 7 ' ; I ; ;k - 1 - d\ A p a r t i a l settlement of the accounts without a r r i v i n g a t any halance i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o I 1 - constitute an account stated. L C.J.S. Account Stated, $ 9 25 and 26, pp. 704,705.' 1 7 It i s apparent t h a t the single indispensable i n g ~ e d i e n t i n an account s t a t e d i s an exact, c e r t a i n and d e f r n i t e balance arrived a t by the debtor and creditor. This can 1 best be i l l u s t r a t e d by the case where therz i s an express agreement' between the debtor and creditor. I n t h a t case the law contenp1at:es t h a t there may be haggling back and f o r t h , but t h a t eventually a balance may be struck which i s agreeable t o both parties. iAk.cn the balance i s agreed upon there i s a new contract i n t o which a l l p r i o r negotia- tions a r e merged. I f a balance could not be agreed upon there would not be an account s t a t e d , and any cause of action would have t o be brought on the original accounts. i 1 The f a c t s here simply do not Lend themselves 20 the r u l e s of law whTch have been established concerning an account stated. The i n i t i a l dealing was between William Hanlon and L. P, Anderson. Kadon's f i r s t b i l l i n g dated August 25, 1963, indicates t h a t the account i s with IIanlon Drilling Co., which i s solely owned by William Hanlon. The second b i l l i n g dated January 5, 1965, one and one-half years l a t e r , indicates t o some extent t h a t the account i s with Melvyn L. Hanlon. Finally, William ~ a n l o n ' s l e t t e r of Izlarch 6, 1971, indicates the account i s solely with 'CJillLam Hanlon and it s t a t e s the amount due a s being $1,750, not the amount s t a t e d i n the complaint of $1,700. There being no substantial credtble evidence appearing, the findings and conclusions t h a t an account stated was reached i s i n error. Both b r i e f s argue a s t o the e q u i t i e s involved. W e a r e not impressed. W e have examined the record and find the findings of f a c t and conclusions of law a r e not supported by the record, and order the cause remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r an order dismissing the complaint. It i s so ordered. ................................... Associate Justices. M r . Justice Haswell and M r . Justice Daly dissenting: The function of t h i s Court i n reviewing findings of fact i n an action tried by the d i s t r i c t court without a jury i s con- fined t o determining whether there i s substantial credible evi- dence supporting such findings of fact. Section 93-216, R.C.M. 1947; State Highway Commission v. The West Great Falls Flood Control and Drainage District, 155 Mont. 157, 468 P.2d 753 and cases cited therein; Timmerman v. Gabriel, 155 Mont. 294, 470 P. 2d 528; Hornung v. Estate of Lagerquist, 155 Mont. 412, 473 P.2d 541. Although the majority opinion gives l i p service t o t h i s principle, i n our opinion i t s conclusion that there i s no sub- s t a n t i a l credible evidence supporting the findings (1) that the account was owed t o the p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon, and (2) that there was an account stated, i s a t variance with the record a t the t r i a l . In our view, the following substantial credible evidence supports the d i s t r i c t court's finding that the account was owed t o p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon, the r e a l party i n interest: (1) William ~ a n l o n ' s testimony that plaintiff Melvyn Hanlon owned the property a t the time of sale, (2) p l a i n t i f f ' s exhibit No. 2 showing an itemized b i l l i n g t o defendant of the property sold showing a t o t a l s u m of $1700 owed t o p l a i n t i f f Melvyn Hanlon, a l l without objection or dispute by defendant, (3) William ~ a n l o n ' s testimony indicating that he was acting on behalf of p l a i n t i f f i n attempting t o collect the amount. In our view, the foregoing evidence plus the evidence of William Hanlon concerning defendant's intention t o pay which i s quoted i n the majority opinion establishes an account stated a s found by the d i s t r i c t court. 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 . 2 d 884; Ballenger v . Tillman, 133 Mont. 369, 324 P.2d 1045; Notti v, Clark, 133 Mont, 263, 322 P . 2 d 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 . 2 d 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: 11 The 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. /