Case Title: Farmers Union Central Cooperative Exchange v. Tomson

Citation: 192 Kan. 274, 387 P.2d 202

Docket Number: 43,398

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1963-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
192 Kan. 274 (1963)
387 P.2d 202
FARMERS UNION CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, a Kansas Corporation, Appellant,
v.
J.G. TOMSON, JR., d/b/a TOMSON HYBRID SEED CORN COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 43,398

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 7, 1963.
Jacob A. Dickinson, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Richard P. Royer, of St. Marys, and Sam A. Crow, Ralph E. Skoog and Bill G. Honeyman, all of Topeka, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
Robert Hecht, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Allen Meyers, Herbert A. Marshall and Doral H. Hawks, all of Topeka, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHROEDER, J.:
This is an action to recover the balance of $2,000 due on the sale of three-year-old seed corn, the plaintiff contending such balance was due on an account stated. The defendant cross-petitions, alleging breach of a warranty as to germination and an oral agreement to adjust the price. The case was tried to the court. *275 Without giving counsel an opportunity to argue the court announced its decision and entered judgment, finding the $2,000 to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, but also finding that the plaintiff should pay the defendant $3,208.60, resulting in a judgment for the defendant in the sum of $1,208.60. Costs were divided between the parties.
Appeal has been duly perfected by the plaintiff.
The controlling question is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's right to have counsel argue its cause before the decision was announced by the court.
At the close of the evidence on September 12, 1961, the trial court stated:
To the foregoing statement counsel for the appellant replied. "Yes, sir," and counsel for the appellee, "Very well."
On March 14, 1962, the trial judge in his letter transmitting copies of his conclusions of fact and law, and advising counsel of his decision, stated as follows:
The appellee had previously requested the trial court to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. When the decision was announced the appellant had not submitted its suggested findings and conclusions. This is admitted by counsel for the appellant. This, however, does not constitute a waiver of argument. At most the appellant would be at a disadvantage, upon submission of the case, for not having reduced to writing its requested findings and conclusions, when its adversary had done so. Counsel for both parties were told by the trial court the case would stand for argument. Counsel had no reason to think the decision would be announced without giving them an opportunity to argue the case or object to such procedure. Counsel were led to believe the case would stand for argument at a time agreeable to them and the court.
The appellee contends the appellant waived his right to have the case argued because the record does not show the appellant made any affirmative attempt to exercise its right to argue. In Boucher v. Roberts, 187 Kan. 675, 359 P.2d 830, the court said:
In the recent decision of Browning v. Lefevre, 191 Kan. 397, 381 P.2d 524, after the evidence had all been presented, the trial court announced that it was ready to rule and then proceded to render judgment. The appellants contended they were denied the right to have their case argued. In the opinion the court said:
In each of the forgoing cases counsel was present in court and knew or had reason to know that his client's right to have his cause argued was being jeopardized, but made no affirmative effort to argue, to insist upon the right to argue, or to object.
In the instant case silence by counsel for the appellant out of court for a period of six months, under the circumstances heretofore stated  where the court affirmatively announced the case would stand for argument  does not constitute a waiver of the right to argue.
Our decision is controlled by Richa v. Wichita Precision Tool Co., 190 Kan. 138, 373 P.2d 201, where many authorities are cited and discussed. There the plaintiffs had requested the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court announced that the plaintiffs would be required to submit suggested findings and conclusions and gave the defendant an opportunity to submit them if it cared, and then said oral argument would be permitted, concluding: "At that time we will set up a date and have argument. Is that satisfactory?" (p. 140.) Findings and conclusions were submitted by both parties, and thereafter, without previous notice to counsel, without argument by counsel and without a transcript being prepared, the court announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found generally for the plaintiffs and against the defendant, and in its last conclusion of law stated that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the defendant. The foregoing action on the part of the trial court was held to constitute reversible error.
As in the Richa case, the appellant here raised the question concerning its right to argue the case in its motion for a new trial, in its notice of appeal, and in its specifications of error, thus squarely presenting the question for review.
Our system of jurisprudence is founded on the proposition that every litigant has a right to be heard. The right to be heard *278 carries with it the absolute right to be represented by counsel, and the right of counsel to assist the court by oral argument in analyzing the evidence and in applying the law. The right of a party to have his cause argued by counsel before the decision is rendered is not fulfilled by an offer of the trial judge to permit argument after the decision is rendered. This gratuitous offer by the trial judge was nothing more than an admission that counsel desired oral argument before the decision was rendered, and that counsel had not waived the right to such argument.
Upon the facts presented by the record in the instant case, the appellant was denied the right to argue the merits of this case, and, under the circumstances presented, we hold it did not waive that right by either silence or acquiescence. The trial court should have heard counsel on the issues of fact and law applicable, and erred in failing to do so.
The record presented in this case is such that upon remand a retrial of the evidence would be of little benefit. Most of the evidence is documentary and the testimony of the parties with respect to the transaction is quite complete. The judge of division No. 3 of the district court of Shawnee County is now retired, and the new judge is directed to review the evidence presented by the transcript. The case will then have the status of one which stands ready for argument, and the court should proceed to set the matter for argument and determine the case.
Our decision should not be construed as an approval or disapproval of either the findings of fact and conclusions of law or of the judgment.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to proceed as above stated to determine the case.
PRICE, J., not participating.