Court Opinion

ID: 9575520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:32.557875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:18.840771
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the decision of the arbitrators and the district court and, therefore, dissent.
In this case, each year appellee sustained damage by elk to stored hay. Appellee’s stored hay was protected by a cow fence that was insufficient to keep elk out of the hay. This fence was damaged by elk in gaining entry to the hay stacks. The Game and Fish Department suggested that appel-lee replace the damaged cow fence with a more substantial game fence and supplied, without charge, material to construct this game fence. Appellee furnished some additional material which, together with the material furnished by Game and Fish and his labor, was used to repair, replace and reconstruct his fence. He then submitted a bill to Game and Fish for his labor and cost of the additional material he supplied in the amount of $1,850.50.
Game and Fish denied his claim of $1,850.50. Arbitrators were appointed pursuant to the rules for appointment of arbitrators, and a hearing was held at which testimony and evidence were received. Ap-pellee was awarded damages of $850 by the arbitrators. The existing fence was replaced by a more substantial game fence at the request of Game and Fish. It is only fair and just that, having complied with that request, he be awarded at least the value of material he supplied and for the damage to his cow fence which was repaired and made into a more substantial game fence.
I would hold that the award was for damages to his cow fence and was proper as a matter of law. I would affirm the decision of the district court.