Court Opinion

ID: 9711913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:41:56.79329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:08.276695
License: Public Domain

*18Concurring Opinion
Garrard, J.
I concur in the majority opinion because I believe it correctly states the test to be applied under Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 41(B) and because Miller v. Schmidt (1958), 123 Ind. App. 379, 110 N.E.2d 347 and Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Standard Oil Co. (1936), 101 Ind. App. 301, 199 N.E. 169, held that where evidence of the total amount claimed due is admitted without objection, it is sufficient to ground a judgment despite lack of evidence of the items making up the account. Compare the contrary result where the evidence was admitted for limited purpose in Jasper Corp. v. Manufacturer’s Appraisal Co. (1972), 153 Ind. App. 457, 287 N.E.2d 781.
However, the case presents a close question on the proof necessary to establish an open account. Had the trial court been entitled to weigh the evidence, it should clearly have been sustained in deciding the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof.
Building Systems maintained that the agreement between the parties called for construction on a cost plus basis throughout. On the other hand, its proof that it was entitled to more than the $103,000 already paid by Rochester went only to the items it considered “extra.” It simply postulated indebtedness of approximately $95,000 for the “original project” with no proof of what labor and materials were furnished in the “original project,” what savings resulted through the “changes,” or, indeed, if there really was an original project that could be equated with the $95,000 figure.
Through extremely effective cross examination, counsel for Rochester clearly exposited that in the theory of its case, Building Systems was attempting to have its cake and eat it too. More significantly, he raised grave doubts as to whether Building Systems had any knowledge of what work and materials were actually furnished under this contract and *19whether they were entitled to any monies beyond those already paid.
However, for the reasons originally stated, I concur.
Note. — Reported at 340 N.E.2d 791.