Court Opinion

ID: 9554125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:42:13.931395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:04.283822
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON:
I dissent.
I believe the complaint herein frames a cause of action on an express oral contract. Unless the evidence adduced at the trial tends to prove the issues thus raised, a nonsuit should be properly sustained. Evidence which tends only to prove an implied contract or quantum meruit will not be sufficient to withstand the motion.
In 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 569, p. 1203, it is said: * * generally, and at common law, in an action brought on an express or special contract plaintiff cannot recover on proof of an implied contract, or on quantum meruit, unless the pleadings are amended to conform to the proof.”
In 41 Am.Jur., Pleading, § 375, p. 551, it is said: “If the plaintiff in his declaration or complaint relies on an express contract, he must prove it as laid, and cannot support his case by proof of an implied one, especially in the absence of .an allegation of value.”
This latter statement was cited with approval by this court in Johns v. Modern Home Crafters, Inc., 134 Mont. 76, 81, 328 P.2d 641.
None of the evidence adduced at the trial tends to prove an express oral contract. In fact, two of plaintiff’s major witnesses, on whose testimony much reliance is placed by plaintiff, specially denied knowledge of an express oral agreement. Mr. Keith Morton testified:
“Q. Now, did you at any of these conferences hear a definite agreement orally made between Mr. McCabe, Sr., and Mrs. Anderson as to payment for services ? A. No, I did not hear any specific agreement, no.
‘ ‘ Q. And if there was such an agreement you do not know when it occurred? A. That is correct.
*509“Q. That is of your own knowledge? A. That is the truth, I don’t know when it occurred.”
Mr. John W. Bonner testified in part: “Now, I don’t know whether Mrs. Anderson or Mr. McCabe ever agreed on a fee, all I know is what he told me in that memorandum of authorities, and my letters with Mr. McCabe.” Emphasis supplied.
Section 93-3901, R.C.M. 1947, provides:
“No variance between the allegation in a pleading and the proof is to be deemed material, unless it has actually misled the adverse party to his prejudice in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits. Whenever it appears that a party has been so misled, the court may order the pleadings to be amended, upon such terms as may be just.”
Section 93-3903, R.C.M. 1947, provides:
“Where, however, the allegation of the claim or defense, to which the proof is directed, is unproAred, not in some particular or particulars only, but in its general scope and meaning; it is not to be deemed a case af variance, within the last tAvo sections, but a failure of proof.”
With reference to these sections, this court said in American Livestock & Loan Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 48 Mont. 495, 502, 138 P. 1102, 1104, that “Avhere one contract is pleaded and another one is proved, or Avhere the complaint alleges one breach of duty, and the evidence establishes a different one, the variance amounts to a failure of proof, upon the occurrence of which a nonsuit is proper.”
In my opinion there was a failure of proof as to the issue of an express oral contract as framed by the pleadings, and the motion for nonsuit should have been granted.