Court Opinion

ID: 9679085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:40:26.631402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.954161
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In his application for rehearing the appellant requests that we set out “all the pertinent facts with reference to Plea ‘E,’ particularly those bearing on the question of a novation, and the amount and value of the ‘extra’ work done by appellee and his partner on the Minnow Ponds. The facts are stated on pages 6 to 15 and pages 51 to 61 of appellant’s original brief."
A reference to appellant’s original brief discloses that pages 51 to 61 are a restatement by way of argument of the facts set out on pages 6 to 15.
In deference to counsel’s request, and in order to insure a 'full and complete review by the Supreme Court, we set out herein the facts requested;
■Appellant contends that Oakley Butler told Dallas Butler when he was showing him over the pond area that there wouldn’t be more than 18 ponds and he thought would be just 16; that Dallas asked $2200.-00 for the job, but later agreed to take it for $1600.00, appellant denies this price was conditional on the work being done while it was dry; that Dallas Butler said a better job could be done when dry and he was told to work when he wanted to; and was never told to' work while wet; that Dallas Butler said if he could be advanced enough money to buy another tractor they could work in the wet. Appellee testified that it took twice as much time to build the ponds working while wet as if it had been dry, but admits he never told appellant or Oakley 'Butler either before or after work was done that they would have to pay twice the original contract price.
In addition to the extra work done according to appellant, set out in the original opinion for which $46.00 was charged, appellee claims extra compensation for cutting down a hill in the pond area, so the dirt could be used to. fill up a low place so they could work while wet; for building banks around ponds higher and wider than contemplated in original contract. Cutting extra drainage ditch from pump house to creek, levelling bottom of pond, one extra pond, all of which appellee claims was done at request of appellant or his partner. But that appellee testified it was after he finished cleaning off place for building appellant said “you keep ufp with the extra work you do1 here and when it is over we will have a settlement of it.” And Dallas Butler testified “they said there would be a good deal of grading to do,” and “they said there would be extra work around there to do.”
No plans or specifications were drawn for the construction of the ponds. Appellant contends the banks around all ponds were to be 8 feet wide at top in order to drive around to pick up minnows.
Appellee testified that extra work was done in putting extra height on the banks, *329that one had to be higher to take care of water and all had to be fixed the same height, but he never figured how much higher they were built.
Oakley Butler’s version was that they got too much dirt around the sales building and the foreman for appellee and Dallas Butler suggested building the bank higher.
Appellee claims it took 4 or 5 hours with each tractor to dress the bottom of the ponds. Under original contract appellant was to do this work with the John Deere tractor.
Appellant admits he was to disc the pond bottoms with this tractor to make them hold water, but the ponds held water without discing and nothing was done to the bottoms by appellee or appellant.
'It is admitted that cutting down the. hill was not contemplated in original contract. The iponds and drainage ditches were to be built around the hill.
Appellant contends Tommie Walton, foreman for appellee, suggested cutting down the hill, which Tommie Walton admitted on cross examination, and appellant told him to go' ahead if he wanted to, but that was their job, and that the hill was cut down for the benefit of the contractors so they would, have a dry place to pull out on.
Dallas Butler testified he never told appellant he would charge for building the pond banks 8 feet wide or building extra roadways. Appellant contends that neither appellee nor Dallas Butler ever stated they were claiming for extra work, except that done outside the pond area amounting to $46.00, until at the fish fry, and that no records were shown as to what the extra work consisted of.
Dallas Butler testified that at the fish fry at which all four persons interested were present, the extra work was discussed and when Oakley Butler gave him the check for $300.00, Dallas said “I think you owe us at least $1,000.00 more, and they never did agree to pay it,” and- Oakley said “Tommie Butler and Rutledge could settle lor the rest of it,” and Tommie spoke up and said, “We will settle some other time.” That appellee’s testimony as to the discussion at the fish fry was: “We talked about the extra work, and we told them how much we 'felt like they owed us,” and Oakley said he would pay $100.00 on extra work and said, “you owe Tommie some money too, so you all can settle up,” that appellant agreed to this and said “for me to let what I owed on the John Deere go on this.” Appellant “just told Dallas I will see you and settle up later.” And appellee stated that Oakley Butler “paid us $300.00.”
Oakley Butler testified as to .additional money for the extra work; in talking to Dallas Butler, “We had talked it over and had decided that $200.00 would be sufficient to.cover it.” And Dallas said, “Well, you pay me what you think is right, I will just leave it up to you.” And Oakley said “the agreement between me and my brother is this, if you and Rutledge Walton, since he has one-half interest in it, because they were partners, if he would settle with Rutledge, that I would give him the check for $200.00 and $100.00 for the extra pond, and let the $100.00 that was due my brother on the farm-tractor go in on it.” That Oakley 'Butler called appellee down there and told him what was said, and Rutledge said “Tommie Butler could use the tractor as agreed in the. sale of the tractor, but Tommie said he didn’t need the tractor, and for appellee to agree with Dallas on it and let the extra go -in on the work that was done extra.” Appellant testified Oakley Butler told Dallas and Rutledge, “We still owed them $200.00 on the original contract and approximately $46.00 for the extra work, so Oakley told Dallas that he and I had agreed to give them $100.00 extra in money and approximately $100.00 extra in work that I was to get with the farm tractor,” and that they accepted this settlement.
Appellee testified he did not go to see appellant after August 27th. On November 2nd appellant demanded the balance on the tractor. Appellee doesn’t remember whether he mentioned the extra work at that time, but he told appellant at Lexington, Alabama, on November 10th that he owed, more on the ponds than he did on the *330tractor. Appellant testified appellee told him he was going into the bank to borrow the money to pay for the tractor, and when he came out of the 'bank he told him he could not borrow the money and refused to give appellant a note, that he would pay appellant $750.00 but he didn’t feel like he owed for the unused work of the tractor. It was after appellant asked for a note that appellee said, “the tractor deal was like it was about the ponds, I owe you for the tractor and you owe me for the work on the ponds.” ¡
’ Appellant and Oakley Butler testified that all money paid on the ponds, including the last $300.00 was partnership money belonging to Oakley Butler and appellant; and that there had been no dissolution of their partnership as to the debt for the ponds, and there had been no agreement that they would assume individual parts of the debts, and they were still operating as a partnership.
Appellant testified he did not tell Oakley Butler he would be individually responsible for $200.00 nor any other sum; that Oakley Butler agreed to pay $100.00 ■of his individual funds if appellant would let $100.00 worth of tractor work go on the claim for extra work and appellant agreed; and after that agreement there was no other statement by appellant or Oakley Butler to each other, that from there on out it would be appellant’s individual debt.
Appellant contends Dallas Butler said to appellant and Oakley Butler, as they were leaving the fish fry, “You owe me more money whether you ever pay me or not.”
Oakley Butler testified that on November 13th, after the attachment, appellee came to his home and said appellant was trying to do all the collecting and none of the paying, and wanted him to pay the full $850.00 and he felt like he only owed $750.00, and he was going to sue for the extra work on the ponds, but he was not going to sue Oakley’ Butler. That he felt ike $1200 00 should have been paid on the balance -for the extra work and he hadn’t been satisfied at the time of the settlement and appellant still owed him the money. That he was worth approximately $5000.00 and if it cost all he had he was going to get it, and appellant could have gotten by without paying the $1200.00 if he hadn’t tried to sue appellee.
Application overruled.