Opinion ID: 2012726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appellants allege the court erred in making an accounting between the parties as to rental collections, some of which were made by plaintiff, and some by defendants.

Text: It is true that plaintiff did not specifically refer to an accounting in his petition for specific performance. This is an equitable action and in the prayer plaintiff prayed that the plaintiff be granted such other further and complete relief as this court may deem just and equitable in the premises. In order to avoid a multiplicity of suits the trial court was not only authorized, but was justified in making accounting as between the parties as to the rental situation growing out of the farm. Appellants also contend that if an accounting was to be made, the accounting as made by the trial court was not correct and that the court should have only allowed $498.17 in favor of plaintiff and that from this amount they claim a balance due on his $500 promissory note, of $435.75 should be deducted from the rental balance. In reading the record we find that plaintiff is entitled to $1013.65 in connection with the accounting as to rental collections made by plaintiff and defendants. It is our position that defendants should be given credit for the balance due from plaintiff on a note of $500 which he gave to plaintiff on March 5, 1946. The rental situation is as follows: Appellant Mr. Olson collected $740.95 in land tax credit and sale of corn which had been grown in 1949 and 1950. According to his own testimony he collected $302 in 1951; $9.52 in 1953; $469.09 in 1954; $305.92 in 1955; $507.30 in 1956; $418.12 in 1957; $261.19 in 1958; this is a total collection of $3014.09. However, he had a loss in 1952 of $217.52, leaving $2796.57. Plaintiff collected in 1953 from the selling of corn and wheat the sum of $769.27. This makes a total net rental collection for the nine years of $3565.84. One-half of this would be $1782.92. Since plaintiff has already received $769.27, he has a balance coming of $1013.65 as his share of rental collections. The trial court suggests that perhaps after plaintiff made his deposit of the $2480 in the office of the Clerk of the District Court in 1957, he should have all of the rent, less reasonable management deduction. However, the court does not divide the matter on said basis, but permits defendants to retain one-half of the rental. We believe this is equitable and fair. The program was established as between plaintiff and Miss Bennett on the basis of a fifty-fifty division and it should be concluded on that basis. There is a suggestion in appellee's argument that the court made no allowance for the note of $500 executed in 1946, because in 1949 plaintiff gave a check to Miss Bennett for $766.33 which was marked in full. However, after Miss Bennett died, plaintiff admitted he owed this note and on September 16, 1951, he made a payment on the note of $274.12. Since we are making an accounting in favor of plaintiff as to the rent, we should also include an accounting in favor of defendants as to this note. Computing the interest at 4% as fixed in the note for the time it ran, as to the two various amounts owing, the note and interest total $684.53. Deducting the $274.12, which plaintiff paid, leaves a balance on the note of $410.41. Deducting this from the rental item of $1013.65, leaves a balance due from appellants to appellee of $603.24. The trial court held there was $747.82 due. The difference is small, but we will modify the court's computation to establish the amount at $603.24 to be deducted from the money on deposit.