Court Opinion

ID: 9794076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:58:34.885592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:09.695540
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
GIVENS, Justice.
Our announcement of independent and appellate appraisal of the deposition of Speer with the oral testimony of the others at the Davenport meeting was confined to what transpired there, and in principle is sustained by the authorities heretofore cited and the discrimination in such pronouncement has in effect been heretofore followed. Whicher v. Delaware Mines Corp., 52 Idaho 304 at page 319, 15 P.2d 610; Cannon v. Seyboldt, 55 Idaho 796 at page 800, 48 P.2d 406; Jaussaud v. Samuels, 58 Idaho 191 at page 201, 71 P.2d 426.
Appellants, Brigham and Smith, all testified no final agreement was reached at that meeting. Respondents contend Smith was impeached or his declaration there was no agreement was overcome by a letter detailing an agreement had been reached. The letter, however, as proof of such, stated:
“In accordance with your desire, I am writing this letter to inform and acquaint you with a certain meeting which took place at the Davenport Hotel in Spokane, Washington approximately the evening of the 29th or 30th of March, 1949.
“There were present at this meeting:
J. A. Spear, Danville, Illinois
Phil Naccarato, Priest River, Idaho
Frank Naccarato, Priest River, Idaho
Joe Bombino, Spokane, Washington
Frank Sacctmono, Spokane, Washington
Attorney Edwin T. Brigham, Newport, Washington
“I, Herb Smith, and J. A. Spear attended this meeting for the purpose of representing the interest of the North Idaho Shingle Mill, Inc.
“For purposes of describing this meeting, J. A. Spear and Herb Smith, representing the interests of the North Idaho Shingle Mill, Inc., will be referred to as the party of the first part and Frank Naccarato, Phil Naccarato, Joe Bombino, and Frank Saccimono will be referred to as representing the interests of the party of the second part.
“As described above, the party of the first part and the party of the second part made an agreement whereby a transfer of all of the interests of the North Idaho Shingle Mill, Inc., by the present stockholders was made to the *293party of the second part with certain conditions attached.
“These conditions were as follows: The party of the second part agreed to assume all outstanding liabilities of the North Idaho Shingle Mill, Inc. Each individual composing the party of the second part agreed to assume these outstanding obligations both jointly and severally and were so advised by Attorney Edwin T. Brigham that they were assuming these liabilities jointly and severally and that any creditor of the North Idaho Shingle Mill, Inc., shown in the liabilities and schedules of the financial statement of A. F. Talbott, a Certified Public Accountant of Seattle, Washington could look to all or any one of them for full payment of their accounts.
“Attorney Edwin T. Brigham was then authorized to draw up this agreement as proposed and agreed upon by the parties of the first and second parts which he did at his office at Newport, Washington. This agreement was then presented to J. A. Spear and Herb Smith who signed the same for the party of the first part and was then presented to Phil Naccarato, Frank Naccarato, Joe Bombino, and Frank Saccimono, each of whom signed the same for the party' of the second part.”
******
s/ Herb Smith”
No such or any agreement was ever reduced to writing or signed by any of the parties.
If the trial court considered the testimony of appellants and Brigham and/or Smith was all false, such would not convert their testimony into affirmative proof there was a sale to and with appellants, assumption of personal liability for the already incurred indebtedness of the corporation, and agreement to personally pay the same up to $30,000. Marovich v. Central California Traction Co., 191 Cal. 295, 216 P. 595 at page 600, #7; Cross v. Albee, 250 Mass. 170, 145 N.E. 45.
Subsequent events and transactions clearly show a continual series of negotiations, shifting of positions, and that no definite, certain agreement had been made at the Davenport meeting or subsequently entered into.
A scrambled series of negotiations and partial, but divergent expressions of what the parties had in mind, and inconclusive performance of parties show no definite meeting of the minds, which is an elementary condition precedent of a binding contract.
Respondents continually urge appellants’ possession of the mill resulted in fraud and loss to the creditors, but do not show by the record where there was any loss. The property is available now as at the beginning of the controversy by sale to liquidate the claims to the extent of its value. Appellants’ mortgages are all for *294money advanced to protect the property, not .for their individual or collective enrichment.
Our decision imposes full liability for all their acts in connection with the unauthorized possession and operation of the mill. This is all that the entire record and equity and good conscience justify.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
PORTER, C. J., and TAYLOR, THOMAS and KEETON, JJ., concur.