Title: MORSE v CREMER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-016
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1982

N o . 82-16 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 WILLIAM R. MORSE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, vs. L E O J. CREMER, J R . , f o r himself, i n d i v i d u a l l y and f o r and on behalf of BERTHA R. CREMER, I N C . , e t a l . , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of P.ark,&-d Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Berger, S i n c l a i r & Nelson, B i l l i n g s , M.ontana For Respondent : Drysdale, McLean, Screnar, Cok & Wheat, Bozeman, Montana Filed: Submitted on b r i e f s : April 2 2 , 1982 Decided : JUW 3 0 19bZ m ! ! WXL.0 $. ?fwf / Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. William Morse brought t h i s a c t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s a g a i n s t t h e defendants. The cause was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t , s i t t i n g without a j u r y , i n t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Sweet Grass. Judgment was e n t e r e d f o r Morse a g a i n s t a l l named a p p e l l a n t s f o r t h e f u l l amount of t h e complaint, $13,338.69. A l l a p p e l l a n t s appeal t h e judgment. The t h e o r y of r e s p o n d e n t ' s s u i t was f o r an account- ing; b a s i c a l l y f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s rendered over a long p e r i o d of time t o a rancher c l i e n t . Following numerous motions, proceedings and d i s c o v e r y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a p r e t r i a l o r d e r on A p r i l 22, 1981. The agreed f a c t s a r i s i n g o u t of t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r were (1) t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f is an a t t o r n e y a t law, d u l y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n t h e S t a t e of Montana, who performed l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e a c t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r ; and ( 2 ) t h a t $50 p e r hour is a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e f o r s e r v i c e s rendered by respondent. Respondent is a lawyer i n Absarokee, Montana, and h a s r e p r e s e n t e d a p p e l l a n t s i n v a r i o u s l e g a l m a t t e r s from b e f o r e 1970 through March 1980. During t h i s time respondent and a p p e l l a n t s e s t a b l i s h e d an a t t o r n e y / c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t was c l o s e , informal and p e r s o n a l . Respondent a l s o b i l l e d a p p e l l a n t s informally. The testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a s respondent performed work, he prepared a s l i p l i s t i n g t h e s e r v i c e s performed and t h e time involved. Each month t h e s e r v i c e s and time involved were added t o a s i n g l e b i l l . The s l i p s from which t h e b i l l i n g s were made were shown t o a p p e l l a n t s , and t h e c h a r g e s and s e r v i c e s over t h i s p e r i o d of time were d i s c u s s e d . A f t e r t h i s was done, respon- d e n t disposed of t h e s l i p s and t r a n s f e r r e d a memorandum of t h e amounts involved t o an account book of a p p e l l a n t , Leo J. Cremer, Jr., with n o t a t i o n s a s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n o r s e r v i c e s involved. Testimony a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d respondent gave a p p e l l a n t s a monthly b i l l i n g . A t v a r i o u s times over t h e y e a r s t h e account remained unpaid and accumulated i n t o r a t h e r l a r g e amounts of money without q u e s t i o n s being r a i s e d by e i t h e r s i d e . When payments were made, t h e y were made by Leo J. Cremer, Jr., on h i s ranch account. The checks from Cremer t o respondent i n d i c a t e d merely a payment of f e e s . From A p r i l 1977, u n t i l March 1980, respondent repre- s e n t e d Leo J. Cremer, J r . , i n an a c t i o n e n t i t l e d Cremer v, Cremer ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 627 P.2d 1199, 38 St.Rep. 574, a c a s e Cremer l o s t , During t h i s same p e r i o d of time respon- d e n t handled numerous o t h e r m a t t e r s and a c t i o n s f o r appel- l a n t s . Respondent c l a i m s t h a t i n J a n u a r y 1980 a p p e l l a n t s owed him more t h a n $10,000 and t h a t a t t h a t time Leo J. Cremer p a i d r e s p o n d e n t $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . R e s p o n d e n t i n d i c a t e d through an e x h i b i t t h a t a l l accounts e x c e p t t h e Cremer v. Cremer c a s e were paid t o d a t e by t h e $10,080 payment. Late i n January 1980, a p p e l l a n t requested t h a t respondent r e t u r n t o him $5,080 of t h e $10,000 p a i d e a r l i e r t h a t month. Leo Cremer, J r . , agreed i n w r i t i n g t o repay t h i s sum t o respon- d e n t b u t d i d n o t do s o . A t t h e time he r e t u r n e d t h e money t o a p p e l l a n t s , respondent added t h e $5,000 t o t h e Cremer account a s p a r t of t h e a c c o u n t s r e c e i v a b l e . Throughout t h i s time t h e informal r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e p a r t i e s was s u c h t h a t r e s p o n d e n t c o n t i n u a l l y p e r f o r m e d s e r v i c e s f o r a p p e l l a n t s and Cremer p e r i o d i c a l l y made pay- ments t o respondent on h i s behalf and on behalf of t h e o t h e r a p p e l l a n t s f o r s e r v i c e s performed. Respondent's r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t throughout t h i s p e r i o d , i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s hourly c h a r g e s f o r h i s s e r v i c e s , he r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d from a p p e l l a n t s c o s t s and o t h e r e x p e n d i t u r e s . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e s e expenses reasonable and necessary. I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n f a v o r of respondent, t h e t r i a l c o u r t judge submitted a memorandum s e t t i n g o u t t h e r e a s o n s f o r h i s r u l i n g , There t h e c o u r t noted t h a t t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e was how much was owed and whether t h e proof of t h e account made under Rule 803 o r 1006, Mont.R.Evid., was a p p l i c a b l e . The c o u r t noted: "The defendant o b j e c t s t o its admission; he i n s i s t s it is a t t h e b e s t nothing more than a summary; t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l time and c o s t s s h e e t s a r e t h e o r i g i n a l documents. The e v i - d e n c e shows p l a i n t i f f l a w y e r made t h e s e e n t r i e s from time and c o s t s h e e t s and t h e n d e s t r o y e d them! "The Court r e a l i z e d t h i s c o n t e s t on admis- s i b i l i t y was c r u c i a l and r u l e d t o t a k e i t under advisement, asked f o r b r i e f s and l e t t h e evidence proceed s u b j e c t t o d e f e n d a n t s ' o b j e c t i o n . "I r u l e it a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 803, M.R.Ev. " I t adds nothing t o t h e record t o c r i t i c i z e t h e sloppy, meandering way t h e account is, b u t t h e record is e l o q u e n t t h a t both houses --both t h e a t t o r n e y ' s and t h e r a n c h e r ' s--were g u i l t y of t h e same methods of record keeping. The payment of t h e check by rancher t o lawyer and p a r t i a l payment back is a bookkeeper's nightmare, I ' v e a t t a c h e d t h e diagram f u r - nished by p l a i n t i f f t o h i g h l i g h t t h i s topsy- t u r v y s i t u a t i o n . " The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d on appeal a r e : 1. Whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 is a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R,Evid. 2. Whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 is a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 1fl06, Mont .R.Evid. 3 . I f respondent is e n t i t l e d t o judgment, whether he is e n t i t l e d t o judgment a g a i n s t Bertha Cremer, Inc., Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock, Bertha Cremer E n t e r p r i s e s , Crazy Mountain Resources and Bertha Cremer. W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court and f i n d its admission of t h e evidence under Rule 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , Mont,R.Evid., c o n t r o l l i n g h e r e . Rule 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R.Evid,, p r o v i d e s : " H e a r s a y e x c e p t i o n s : a v a i l a b i l i t y of d e c l a r - a n t immaterial. "The following a r e n o t excluded by t h e hear- say r u l e , even though t h e d e c l a r a n t is a v a i l - a b l e a s a w i t n e s s : " ( 6 ) Records of r e g u l a r l y conducted a c t i v i t y . A memorandum, r e p o r t , r e c o r d , o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n , i n any form, of a c t s , e v e n t s , c o n d i t i o n s , o p i n i o n s , o r d i a g n o s i s , made a t o r near t h e time of t h e a c t s , e v e n t s , condi- t i o n s , o p i n i o n s , o r d i a g n o s i s , i f kept i n t h e c o u r s e of a r e g u l a r l y c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y , and i f it was t h e r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e of t h a t b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y t o make t h e memo- randum, r e p o r t , r e c o r d , o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n , a l l a s shown by t h e testimony of t h e custo- d i a n or o t h e r q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s , u n l e s s t h e s o u r c e of t h e information o r t h e method o r circumstances of p r e p a r a t i o n i n d i c a t e l a c k of t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . The term ' b u s i n e s s ' a s used i n t h i s paragraph i n c l u d e s b u s i n e s s , i n s t i t u - t i o n , a s s o c i a t i o n , p r o f e s s i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , and c a l l i n g of every kind, whether o r n o t conducted f o r prof it," A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 does n o t conform t o t h e r e q u i s i t e s of Rule 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R.Evid., because under t h i s r u l e t h r e e c r i t e r i a must be met b e f o r e t h e document is a d m i s s i b l e t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e : (1) t h e document must be a memorandum; ( 2 ) t h e memorarldum must be made a t o r near t h e time of t h e e v e n t ; and ( 3 ) it must be made i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s . A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t t h e second element h a s n o t been s a t i s f i e d h e r e , c i t i n g 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence, s e c t i o n 938. A s p r e v i o u s l y noted, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between respon- d e n t and a p p e l l a n t s was a c o n t i n u i n g one brought about by numerous l a w s u i t s and a p e r s o n a l c o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t sometimes involved d a i l y telephone c a l l s and o t h e r f r e q u e n t communications. One of t h e b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t respondent had with a p p e l l a n t s was a c o n t r a c t f o r a t o t a l of $25,000 i n which respondent would p r o b a t e t h e e s t a t e s of t h e a p p e l l a n t and h i s son o r w i f e , whichever d i e d f i r s t . That c o n t r a c t provided f o r annual payments o f $2,500 a y e a r . Respondent t e s t i f i e d about h i s bookkeeping methods: "Our o f f i c e procedure involved keeping time and c h a r g e s memorandum on small memorandum s l i p s t h a t were kept f o r t h a t purpose, on a temporary b a s i s u n t i l such time a s t h e y were t r a n s c r i b e d i n t o t h i s l e d g e r . And we u s u a l l y r e t a i n them u n t i l a f t e r t h e b i l l i n g t o t h e c l i e n t i n c a s e t h e r e is any q u e s t i o n about it. And a f t e r t h e b i l l i n g t o t h e c l i e n t t h e n o t e s involved t h a t appear t o be s u p e r f l u o u s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s e , a r e d i s c a r d e d .'I Some of t h e c h a r g e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r a p p e l l a t e work, were allowed t o a c c r u e f o r a period of time b e f o r e t h e y were b i l l e d t o t h e c l i e n t . T h i s bookkeeping system appeared t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y t o a l l concerned u n t i l 1980, when t h e $5,000 chargeback came i n t o q u e s t i o n . I n s u p p o r t of h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t E x h i b i t 1 does n o t r e f l e c t t h e t i m e l i n e s s of e n t r y of t h e documents r e q u i r e d t o comply with t h e second p a r t of Rule 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , a p p e l l a n t s r e l y on two c a s e s , Tabata v. Murane ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 76 Cal.App.2d 887, 174 P.2d 684, and Hallmark B u i l d e r s , Inc., e t al, v. Anthony (Tex, 1 9 7 7 ) , 547 S.W.2d 681. I n Tabata t h e c o u r t s t a t e d : "The c o u r t would have been j u s t i f i e d i n regarding t h e w r i t i n g s a s mere fragments of an account r e l a t i n g t o o n l y a p a r t of t h e b u s i n e s s d e a l i n g s of p l a i n t i f f and decedent. Before an account is a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence f o r t h e purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g a cause of a c t i o n of an openbook account, it must be shown t o have been a c c u r a t e l y k e p t , which was n o t done i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and i t must be s o complete a s t o show t h e b a l a n c e of indebt- edness due from one p a r t y t o t h e o t h e r , i n which r e s p e c t a l s o p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence was d e f i c i e n t . " 174 P,2d a t 686. Here, while r e s p o n d e n t ' s testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n e r r o r s were made and l a t e r c o r r e c t e d , t h e t r i a l judge found t h a t t h e e n t r i e s t e s t i f i e d t o were a c c u r a t e l y made. T h e r e f o r e , Tabata is n o t a p p l i c a b l e . Hallmark B u i l d e r s , s u p r a , is c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , I n t h a t c a s e , t h e c o u r t found t h a t s i n c e some i n v o i c e s f o r t h e s a l e of b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s were n o t compiled u n t i l s e v e r a l months a f t e r t h e o r d e r had been f i l l e d , t h e i n v o i c e s were n o t a d m i s s i b l e . Here, respondent t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l s l i p s were immediately e n t e r e d i n t o h i s books. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e b i l l i n g was d i s c u s s e d each month w i t h a p p e l l a n t who was given an o p p o r t u n i t y t o , and a t times d i d , d i s c u s s and d i s a g r e e with v a r i o u s items appearing on t h e s l i p s b e f o r e t h e y were disposed o f . T h i s Court appointed a Commission on t h e Rules of Evidence and its r e p o r t a p p e a r s with Rules of Evidence i n 3 MCA Annotations. The e x c e p t i o n t o Rule 8 0 3 ( 6 ) r e l i e d on h e r e was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n t h e uniform r u l e s of evidence e x c e p t f o r a p h r a s e d e l e t e d from t h e f e d e r a l and uniform r u l e which might have r e s u l t e d i n a g r e a t e r r e s t r i c t i o n t o t h e then e x i s t i n g Montana law. The Com~nission Comments i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n i n Montana's uniform b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s evidence r u l e is s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e f e d e r a l r u l e and t h a t Montana had, p r i o r t o t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e new r u l e s , o p e r a t e d under t h e uniform a c t . A s t o t h i s e x c e p t i o n , t h e Commission s a i d i n p a r t : "It should be noted t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n allows o p i n i o n s and d i a g n o s i s ( c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d ) t o be a d m i s s i b l e ; t h a t is c o n s i s t e n t with Klaus v. H i l b e r r y , 157 Mont. 277, 285, 485 P.2d 54 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , which allowed medical r e p o r t s c o n t a i n i n g o p i n i o n s and d i a g n o s i s t o be admitted and r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n 93-801-2, R.C.M. 1947 [superseded]. I t should a l s o be noted t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n could be seen a s an expansion of e x i s t i n g Montana law t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d s of r e g u l a r l y con- ducted a c t i v i t y i n a wide v a r i e t y of forms, i n c l u d i n g computer p r i n t o u t s a r e admissible." 3 MCA Annotations a t 260. W e f i n d t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n l a i d f o r admission of t h e account i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e more than s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e - ment of t h e uniform a c t o r Rule 8 0 3 ( 6 ) . The q u e s t i o n s pro- pounded by respondent i n l a y i n g t h e foundation f o r t h e account were prepared i n w r i t i n g f o r t r i a l and were s p e c i - f i c a l l y based on requirements of Rule 803(6) a s well a s t h e former uniform a c t . Respondent n o t o n l y covered b u t indeed f u l f i l l e d t h e requirement f o r foundation under t h e r u l e . Respondent r e l i e s on Edgewood Lumber Co. v. Hull f o r t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of h i s account i n t h i s c a s e . There, t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s bookkeeper made e n t r i e s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s account from a temporary memorandum c o n s i s t i n g of account s h e e t s and t i c k e t s which were disposed of upon t h e e n t r y t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s account. The d e f e n d a n t claimed t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y admitted t h e account i n t o evidence because t h e s l i p s and t i c k e t s were n o t produced and t h e r e f o r e t h e account was n o t t h e b e s t evidence. The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , saying: "Elence, following t h e r u l e of n e c e s s i t y which o r i g i n a t e d t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of books o f account i n evidence, t h e c o u r t s do n o t regard s u c h t e m p o r a r y memoranda a s t h e o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , b u t look t o t h e permanent r e c o r d s a s such o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , where p r o p e r l y v e r i - f i e d . I t is now w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e f i r s t permanent r e c o r d s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s by t h e c r e d i t o r a r e t o be deemed t h e o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , i f made i n t h e usual c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s and w i t h i n a reasonably s h o r t time a f t e r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s themselves, although t h e items may have been f i r s t e n t e r e d a s a temporary a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e memory upon some s l a t e , book, paper o r o t h e r substance. I t is of no consequence what t h e m a t e r i a l was on which t h e memoranda were made o r t h e s i z e o r shape of it, a s long a s it was a mere minute, n o t i n t e n d e d t o be p r e s e v e d a s e v i d e n c e i t s e l f of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , b u t t o be used i n p r e p a r a t i o n of such evidence. I n such c a s e s t h e books of account i n t o which t h e e n t r i e s h a v e been t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e t e m p o r a r y means of r e c o r d , and n o t t h e t e m p o r a r y r e c o r d s themselves, a r e t h e books of o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s . "'The c h a r a c t e r of a book a s one of o r i g i n a l e n t r y is n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e temporary memoranda were made by a person o t h e r than t h e one who kept t h e book o f f e r e d i n t o evidence. I n o t h e r words, a book of a c c o u n t made up i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s from t h e s l i p s , r e p o r t s , o r memoranda, f u r n i s h e d by t h e employees who conducted t r a n s a c t i o n s , which c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i r s t permanent record of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s e n t e r e d i n it is a book of o r i g i n a l e n t r y and a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence a s such.'" ~dgewood Lumber, 223 S.W.2d a t 212. See, Jones on Evidence ( 5 t h ed. 1 9 5 8 ) , s e c t i o n 614. H e r e , n o t o n l y was t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t i n a d m i t t i n g t h e account under Rule 8 8 3 ( 6 ) , it was a l s o c o r r e c t i n its f i n d i n g of f a c t t h a t respondent a c t u a l l y performed t h e work f o r a p p e l l a n t s b e c a u s e r e s p o n d e n t t e s t i f i e d d i r e c t l y , from h i s knowledge, a s t o t h e s p e c i f i c s e r v i c e s performed and t h e subsequent charges. S i n c e we f i n d t h e e x h i b i t was p r o p e r l y admitted under Rule 8Pi3, it is n o t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r whether it was a d m i s s i b l e under Rule 1006, Mont.R.Evid. The n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s whether respondent is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a g a i n s t Bertha R. Cremer, Inc., Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock, Bertha Cremer E n t e r p r i s e s , Crazy Mountain Resources and ~ e r t h a R. Cremer. W e n o t e t h a t t h i s i s s u e is r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time on appeal. Cremer's argument a t t h e time of t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r was t h a t he had a l r e a d y paid f o r t h e s e s e r v i c e s , n o t t h a t t h e s e r v i c e s had n o t been performed f o r t h e v a r i o u s a p p e l l a n t s . Leo J. Cremer, Jr., when c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by respondent, answered t h e following q u e s t i o n : "Q. And i n t h e management of t h e s e you have d e a l t with them a l l a s one Cremer e n t e r p r i s e , have you n o t ? A. I have been involved i n a l l of them, yes." H i s testimony, a s w e l l a s o t h e r testimony, i n d i c a t e d t h a t Leo J, Cremer, J r ., was i n charge of t h e management of a l l t h e v a r i o u s e n t i t i e s named a s d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t t h e y were d e a l t with a s one Cremer e n t e r p r i s e . The f i n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n is t h e e f f e c t of t h e c o u r t ' s p r e t r i a l o r d e r when i s s u e d . This i s s u e is of c o n s i d e r a b l e import b o t h t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court and t h i s Court i n a r r i v i n g a t our d e c i s i o n s , Rule 16, M,R.Civ.P., provides: "The c o u r t s h a l l make an o r d e r which r e c i t e s t h e a c t i o n t a k e n a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e , t h e amendments allowed t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , and t h e agreements made by t h e p a r t i e s a s t o any of t h e m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d , and which l i m i t s t h e i s s u e s f o r t r i a l t o t h o s e n o t disposed of by admissions o r agreements of counsel; and such o r d e r when e n t e r e d c o n t r o l s t h e subsequent c o u r s e of t h e a c t i o n , u n l e s s modified a t t h e t r i a l t o prevent m a n i f e s t i n j u s t i c e . The c o u r t i n its d i s c r e t i o n may e s t a b l i s h by r u l e a p r e t r i a l c a l e n d a r on which a c t i o n s may be placed f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s above provided and may e i t h e r c o n f i n e t h e c a l e n d a r t o j u r y a c t i o n s o r t o nonjury a c t i o n s o r extend it t o a l l a c t i o n s , " Such an o r d e r was made i n t h i s c a s e and provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The following f a c t s were a d m i t t e d , agreed t o be t r u e and r e q u i r e no proof. "1. The P l a i n t i f f is an a t t o r n e y a t law, d u l y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n t h e S t a t e of Montana and performed l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Defendants, p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e a c t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r , "2. That $50.00 p e r hour is a reasonable a t t o r n e y ' s f e e f o r s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by P l a i n t i f f . "PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: " P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n s a r e a s f o l l o w s : "1. P l a i n t i f f is a d u l y l i c e n s e d and prac- t i c i n g a t t o r n e y i n t h e S t a t e of Montana and performed l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Defendants a t t h e r e a s o n a b l e and agreed v a l u e of $50.00 per hour. "2. That Defendants owe P l a i n t i f f f o r such l e g a l s e r v i c e s t h e sum o f $ 1 3 , 3 3 8 . 6 9 , t o g e t h e r with i n t e r e s t and c o s t s , "DEFENDANTS ' CONTENTIONS: "Defendants' c o n t e n t i o n s a r e a s f o l l o w s : "That Defendants do n o t owe P l a i n t i f f t h e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s claimed, o r any a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , t h e y having f u l l y p a i d P l a i n t i f f f o r a l l l e g a l work completed by him, o r f o r them, i n t h e p a s t . "ISSUES O F FACT: "The i s s u e s of f a c t a r e a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s and Defendants' c o n t e n t i o n s , " From t h e above p o r t i o n of t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r and i n view of t h e f a c t s a d m i t t e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was l e f t w i t h o n l y two c o n t e n t i o n s t o be proved by t h e respondent--namely, t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s agreed t o pay t h e $50 an hour and t h a t t h e y owed t h e sum of $13,338.69 p l u s c o s t s . A p p e l l a n t s 1 s o l e c o n t e n t i o n was t h a t they owed n o t h i n g , having f u l l y paid t h e respondent. Respondent1 s testimony is l e f t u n c o n t r a d i c t e d t h a t t h e agreed v a l u e was i n f a c t $50 per hour and t h a t he d i d p e r f o r m t h e s e r v i c e s of v a l u e a s c o n t e n d e d and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s produced no proof whatsoever of payment. W e r e l y on Davis v. Davis ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 355, 360, 497 P.2d 315, 318, i n d e c i d i n g t h i s m a t t e r where t h i s Court held: "The p r e t r i a l o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s under which t h e p l a i n t i f f s were employed were t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , and m a i n t a i n s a d e n i a l of any of p l a i n t i f f s ' a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t s with defendant. T h i s Court is compelled t o a g r e e w i t h p l a i n t i f f s 1 argument t h a t it s t a n d s t o reason i f t h e r e were no c o n t r a c t s t h e r e could be no breaches, and i f t h e agreements were t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o t e r m i n a t e a t any time t h e y saw f i t . However, of more c r u c i a l weight is t h e p r o c e d u r a l p r o c e s s which r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e i s s u e s of waiver and breach were n o t made i s s u e s a t t h e t r i a l and t h u s may n o t be introduced on appeal. T h i s Court h a s s a i d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t it w i l l c o n s i d e r f o r review o n l y t h o s e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . [ C i t i n g c a s e s . ] " Here t h e s t a t e of t h e record and t h e proof produced a t t r i a l s u p p o r t s t h e c o u r t l s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and judgment. The judgment is a f f i r m e d . , . J u s t i c e / W e concur: