Title: ALEXANDER v HARDY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12279
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 6, 1973

No. 12279 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T OF T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1973 DEE ALEXANDER, WILLIAM ALEXANDER, and P A U L ALEXANDER, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -VS - NED HARDY and T O W N S E N D L U M B E R C O M P A N Y , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Keller, Reynolds and Drake, Helena, Montana Argument submitted on b r i e f s . For Respondents: Allen LeMieux, Boulder, Montana Argument submitted on b r i e f s . Submitted : January 24, 1973 ~ e c i d e d :FEB 6 - 1973 Filed: FEE 6 - 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal i s from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court of Jefferson County, s i t t i n g without a jury, finding an indebted- ness owed t o p l a i n t i f f s by defendants i n the amount of $1,105.87; foreclosure of a logger's l i e n therefor; and costs and attorney fees. The case involved payments due under a contract f o r t h e f a l l i n g of timber. Defendant, Ned Hardy, was an independent contractor who had contracted with Townsend Lumber Company t o f a l l , skid and deck the logs. Codefendant, Townsend Lumber Company, purchased the logs from the United States Government, By s t i p u l a t i o n Town- send Lumber Company agreed t o pay any amount unsatisfied, i f p l a i n t i f f s recovered judgment against defendant Ned Hardy. I n consideration of t h i s agreement p l a i n t i f f s agreed t o dismiss Townsend Lumber Company from t h i s action. Hereinafter , i n speaking of defendant, we r e f e r t o Ned Hardy alone. The f a c t s of the case a r e : J u s t p r i o r t o February 11, 1971 an o r a l contract f o r employment was negotiated between defendant and p l a i n t i f f s Dee, W i l l and Paul Alexander. P l a i n t i f f s were em- ployed by defendant t o go upon a t r a c t designated Block !!4, approxi- mately s i x miles outh of Cataract Creek i n Jefferson County, Montana, and cut down c e r t a i n t r e e s f o r saw logs. Defendant agreed t o pay p l a i n t i f f s the sum of $5 per thousand board f e e t f o r t r e e s c u t down by them, payment t o be made a f t e r tkees had been hauled and scaled. P l a i n t i f f s commenced work f o r defendant on February 11, 1971. After the f i r s t seven o r eight days of c u t t i n g the contract was modified by providing f o r bimonthly payments of f i f t y cents per t r e e c u t a s an advance against t h e pay s c a l e of $5 per thousand board f e e t , u n t i l such time a s actual hauling and scaling could take place. Sample scales were t o be taken by defendant t o provide a comparison of the advance payment with the scale r a t e . D e - fendant paid the advances requested by p l a i n t i f f s on February 19 and March 10, 1971. According t o p l a i n t i f f s they sawed, limbed and cut 6,570 trees a s of March 25, 1971. Evidence of the number of t r e e s cut was from a record kept by p l a i n t i f f s on a day by day b a s i s , which was introduced. Thus p l a i n t i f f s contend they a r e e n t i t l e d (at the r a t e of f i f t y cents per t r e e ) t o $3,285 l e s s payments of $2,179.13, leaving a balance of $1,105.87 unpaid and due from defendant. O n the other hand, defendant contends t h a t $825 was paid by him t o p l a i n t i f f s on February 19, 1971, And again on March 10, 1971, $1,050 was paid t o p l a i n t i f f s . I n addition, testimony indicates t h a t 287,276 board f e e t of lumber was delivered t o Tolamsend Lumber Company from Block #4. This amount was a t t e s t e d t o by Gerald Delin, a f o r e s t e r and wood boss f o r Townsend Lumber Company, whose duty i t was t o scale logs and keep a record of what was a c t u a l l y delivered t o the sawmill. Based on t h i s accounting, Delin indicated t o defendant Hardy t h a t he was overestimating the board footage. As it became c l e a r t o defendant t h a t the advances were exceeding the $5 per thousand compensation, he denied further advances on March 25, 1971, Delin a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he went out t o the c u t t i n g area i n e a r l y summer and again i n October a f t e r p l a i n t i f f s had q u i t c u t t i n g , f o r the purpose of estimating the board footage l e f t ; which had not been delivered. H e estimated there were 50,000 board f e e t of decked logs and another 2,000 board f e e t of mer- chantable logs or t r e e s down which had not been decked. H i s t e s t i - mony was corroborated by Doyne L. Tank, a timber a s s i s t a n t f o r the United States Forest Service. Thus, a t the r a t e of $5 per thousand, defendant owed p l a i n t i f f s a t o t a l of $1,696.38 f o r 339,276 board f e e t . Plain- t i f f s admitted payment i n the amount of $2,179.13. Based on these figures, defendant's advances were exceeding the $5 per thousand compensation. When defendant refused t o make payment on March 25, 1971, p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a logger's l i e n the following day, pursuant t o section 45-407, R.C.M. 1947. O n March 29, 1971, t h i s action was f i l e d . T r i a l was had on November 8, 1971, the court s i t t i n g without a jury. Judgment was rendered on February 24, 1972, i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s i n the amount of $1,105.87 based on payment of f i f t y cents per t r e e ; the logger's l i e n was ordered foreclosed and s a l e of the timber was ordered t o be made accordingly. The i s s u e involved i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n i s what were the terms of the contract between the p a r t i e s and whether o r not de- fendant completely compensated p l a i n t i f f s f o r t h e i r services under t h a t contract. The d i s t r i c t court concluded t h a t defendant had breached the contract by h i s f a i l u r e t o submit timber f o r scaling, therefore giving p l a i n t i f f s the r i g h t t o e l e c t the a l t e r n a t i v e method of payment, i . e . f i f t y cents per t r e e , c i t i n g Thomas v. Cloyd, 110 Mont. 343, 100 P.2d 938. This i s e r r o r . The f i f t y cents per t r e e was not an a l t e r n a t i v e means of compensation but r a t h e r an advancement u n t i l scaling and board footage was estimated. P l a i n t i f f s c i t e 95 ALR2d 504, a s authority f o r l i a b i l i t y of an employer f o r agreed advances which exceed the share of pro- f i t s o r commissions earned. However, the annotation a l s o discloses t h a t t h e employer's l i a b i l i t y depends upon the language of the con- t r a c t . The r e s u l t depends on whether the p a r t i c u l a r contract pro- visions involved a r e considered a s guaranteeing t o the employee a minimum amount represented by the advances t o which he i s en- t i t l e d , o r whether the amount of the compensation depends e n t i r e l y on the amount of h i s commissions, i.e, board footage. Here, the f a c t s a r e c l e a r . The p a r t i e s intended the f i f t y cents per t r e e a s only an advancement, not a guarantee. The ultimate compensation was t o be based on $5 per thousand board f e e t and not on f i f t y cents per t r e e c u t . There i s substantial credible evidence i n the record by plaintiff Paul Alexander that p l a i n t i f f s were t o be paid a t the r a t e of $5 per thousand board feet for t h e i r labors. In answer t o questions by defendant's attorney concerning any change made i n the original agreement, Paul Alexander t e s t i f i e d : "A. Yes, a f t e r we had sawed there about a week t o a week and a half * * 9 : w e could see that he wasn't going t o move the timber as f a s t as we was cutting; therefore, we couldn't get paid right. I f w e had two or three weeks timber laying on the ground we wouldn't get paid for i t unless they were moving it and scaling it, so he come up with the idea i n the presence of me, m y brother, and m y dad that he would pay us as an advance 5 0 4 4 per tree. N o w that was u n t i l they got t h i s timber hauled down t o the m i l l and scaled and we would take either a cut or a gain, depending on how it scaled. "Q. And did you accept that agreement then? A. W e accepted that. I I I I Q. And now you were sawing by the t r e e for an advance purpose only, i s n ' t that correct? A, hat's correct, yes. "0. There seems to be a l i t t l e confusion. and I w&t t o be sure we are i n agreement on this. You correct. "Q. But on that, you were t o receive advances under your testimony a t the r a t e of 50d per tree? A. Per t r e e every two weeks without f a i l . ' (Emphasis supplied). William and Dee Alexander t e s t i f i e d that they agreed with the testimony of Paul and that ultimately they were t o be paid a t the r a t e of $5 per thousand and the f i f t y cents per t r e e was an advance only. Regardless of when or how the advances were t o be made the ultimate compensation was to be $5 per thousand board feet, B y applying simple mathematics, i t i s thus established that the p l a i n t i f f s earned $1,725 for the cutting of 345,076 board feet of timber, the highest figure appearing anywhere i n the record. To t h i s , we add the $75 cleanup allowance agreed upon by the parties. It i s admitted that p l a i n t i f f s have been paid $2,179.13. Thus, p l a i n t i f f s have been overpaid i n the amount of $379.13. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the cause dismissed. Associate Justice Justice .............................. Associate Justices.