Title: Camas Logging Co. v. HASKINS

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed as modified March 2, 1960.
Petition for rehearing denied April 5, 1960.
*183 W.P. Riddlesbarger, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Edward A. Butler, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Lombard & Lombard, Cottage Grove, and Harris, Butler, Husk & Gleaves and James C. Goode, Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY and HARRIS, Justices.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
HARRIS, J. (Pro Tempore)
Under date of January 23, 1951, defendant, Haskins Lumber Company (hereinafter referred to as Haskins), entered into a contract with Timber Development Company, the owner of timberlands near Swisshome, whereby Haskins agreed to construct and operate certain sawmills to manufacture into lumber the timber which Haskins agreed to log from the lands *184 belonging to Timber Development Company. Haskins agreed to do everything needed to produce the lumber.
On March 15, 1951, Cope Logging Company entered into a contract with Haskins whereby Cope agreed to perform the logging operations and road construction as required of Haskins by the terms of the contract dated January 23, 1951.
On March 23, 1953, the contract was amended to provide that Haskins assume the obligation to deliver the logs to the mill from the woods, to maintain roads, and to cold-deck surplus logs.
This agreement was assigned by Cope to the plaintiff, Camas Logging Company, on September 5, 1953.
In November, 1953, Haskins purchased from Timber Development Company all the latter's interest in the timber covered by the January 23, 1951, contract.
Some time in 1954, the exact date being impossible to determine, the prior written contracts were modified by Camas and Haskins to this effect: Haskins agreed to buy and did buy a crane. Haskins agreed to furnish one man. Camas agreed in return to do all the decking of surplus logs and pay all expenses connected with doing so. The place of log scale was changed from lumber scale as sawed in the mill to log scale.
As logs were received, they would be dumped into a pond belonging to Haskins, from which some might go directly to the mill where they were scaled prior to manufacture, or they might be placed in a cold deck before which they were scaled. The cold deck logs were again scaled when they were taken from the deck to the mill for manufacture.
Logs produced by Camas during the year 1955 were placed in cold deck, from which they were removed and manufactured into lumber prior to March, 1956. *185 The so-called 1956 cold deck was commenced about April 23, 1956.
Camas instituted this litigation to restrain Haskins from manufacturing into lumber logs obtained by Haskins from sources other than Camas and for an accounting with reference to other operations.
The accounting with reference to the decks necessarily entailed the question as to whether or not Haskins had paid Camas for the logs which it had used in the manufacture of lumber. That problem gave rise to the question of what deductions from the price paid for the logs Haskins had made and was permitted to make. The particular deductions which were put in issue included deductions for personal property taxes for the year 1954 and the year 1955 from the price paid for logs taken for manufacture from the 1955 deck; and deductions for the repair of a piece of equipment owned by Haskins but used by Camas in making the 1955 cold deck. Camas also asked for payment for logs which were used to construct a matting or corduroy deck over which the equipment used in cold-decking moved, and for the footage of logs which were used as boomsticks at the mill pond. The court allowed the claim of Camas for reimbursement for amounts withheld by Haskins for personal property taxes and the claim for payment for the logs used in the corduroy road and the boomstick.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court so far as material to the issues raised upon this appeal are as follows:
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court entered a decree in favor of Camas in the sum of $7,996.91, with interest thereon at 6% per annum from August 1, 1956, until the date of the decree. From this decree, Haskins has appealed.
Haskins' assignments of error are stated as follows:
1. The principal issue involved in this appeal is which party is obligated to pay the personal property taxes on the cold deck.
It will be noticed that the court found it was the express agreement of the parties that Camas would pay all of the ordinary costs incurred in the making of the cold deck. However, the court held that the parties did not specifically agree with reference to personal property taxes on the cold deck, and that there was no meeting of the minds concerning the payment of such taxes. The court also found that the personal property taxes were not an ordinary cost in the making of a cold deck.
It must be remembered that Camas was merely logging and hauling, and that the cold deck was located on Haskins' mill site; also that the timber and logs involved were at all times owned by Haskins. Likewise, it is significant that the general manager of Haskins testified as follows:
The foregoing testimony indicates Camas was to stand "all expenses of putting in this deck and tearing it back down again." This evidence, given by Haskins' general manager, would hardly reflect an understanding Camas was to pay the personal property taxes on property located on Haskins' mill site.
Haskins challenges finding of fact No. 3, which reads as follows:
However, it is significant Haskins did not challenge finding of fact No. 2, which provides:
We concur in the reasoning of the trial court when, in passing upon the issue here involved, he stated:
ORS 308.105 (2) provides in part:
It is to be noted Haskins was not only the owner, but was the person having possession and control of the cold deck.
We conclude from the foregoing that plaintiff, Camas, is entitled to a decree for the sum held out by Haskins as personal property tax for a total of $5,764.58.
2. The court held that Camas was entitled to a decree for the sum of $196.61 for shovel repair. However, the undisputed evidence appearing from Camas's exhibit EE is to the effect that the repairs on this piece of equipment were made necessary because the "house lock on the crane  was broken by them [Camas]." Therefore, it is equitable Camas should be charged with these repairs in the sum of $196.61.
3. The court made an allowance to Camas of $1,705.72 for logs delivered by Camas which were not run through the mill or scaled, but which were used as matting in a corduroy road. These logs were in the cold deck at the end of the 1955 season.
Regarding these logs, Jack Ramsey, a Bureau scaler, testified as follows:
We believe, therefore, that the evidence shows that these logs were delivered to Haskins and used by Haskins in 1956 when the latter completed cutting the logs which were used in the cold deck. These logs were never scaled and consequently plaintiff was not paid therefor. The fact the logs deteriorated in use would not relieve Haskins from liability. The report of the referee shows the amount and footage of the logs involved. We therefore hold this item was properly allowed Camas by the decree of the trial court.
The court made an allowance to Camas of $330 for logs delivered that were used for boom sticks. On this matter, both parties rely on substantially the same argument advanced by them with reference to the claim for logs used for matting, which has immediately *192 above been disposed of. The reasons announced by us for allowing the claim for the logs used as matting dispose of this claim in favor of Camas.
4-6. Finally, Haskins urges that the court erred in allowing interest, asserting the prayer of the complaint does not include a claim for interest. A court of equity, however, in a proper case, will grant such relief as a party is in equity and good conscience entitled to, whether such relief has been prayed for or not. Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Or 374. Interest is allowable in equity where principles of equity so demand. McCarty v. Gault, 24 FSup 977, 979 and cases there cited. We concur in the trial court's conclusion that interest should be allowed in this case.
The decree of the trial court is modified solely to the extent of charging Camas with the repairs to the shovel in the sum of $196.61. In all other respects, it is affirmed. Neither party will be allowed costs or disbursements.