EDWARDS v PEAVEY COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13117 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1976 WILLIAM ROBERT EDTJARDS and BARBARA EDWARDS, husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , PEAVEY COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n , Defendants, and ROY VAESSEN, I n t e r v e n o r , Counterclaimant and Crossclaimant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B. Gary a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondents: Drysdale, M c k a n & S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana James McLean a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana H o l t e r , Heath and Kirwan, Bozernan, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : ;3 1976 March 1 0 , 1976 MkY 19 1976 . I . ' IL. C e r e 5 . Ualy l e l ~ v e ~ e-he J ~ I . Z I ~ U I IC d 31 L I L~ C L L . ~ . O r h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a f i n a l ,judgment i n a c o n t r a c t ~LLLOLI ~ t ~ l l , ~ r u i t hge terms o f a farm l e a s e i n f a v o r o f Roy n \ , / a d s s e n , I - e s p o n d e n t , by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, ludge W. W. Lessley presiding. On August 1 0 , 1972, p l a i n t i f f s W i l l i a m and B a r b a r a Yuwards, husband and w i f e , ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s Edwards) ~ ~ r c h a s e d f a r m s o u t h w e s t o f Bozeman, Montana, from o n e John a "asha. Edwards d e c i d e d t o l e a s e t h e f a r m on a c r o p s h a r i n g nrrangement t o t h e i n t e r v e n o r i n t h i s m a t t e r , Roy Vaessen. The q e r t i n e n t terms of t h e l e a s e a r e : he t e r m o f t h i s l e a s e and a g r e e m e n t s h a l l e x t e n d from November 1, 1 9 7 2 , and c o n t i n u e f o r t h r e e ( 3 ) c r o p y e a r s t h e r e a f t e r , and s h a l l r e r m i n a t e on November 1, 1975. "Subject t o t h e foregoing r e s e r v a t i o n , t h e Lessors do hereby a g r e e t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l have posses- s i o n of t h e p r e m i s e s h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d on November 1, 1972, and t h a t t h e L e s s e e s h a l l d u r i n g t h e t e r m af t h i s l e a s e , f a r m t h e l a n d s h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d i n a good and f a r m e r - l i k e manner, a n d , a s r e n t a l f o r !:he u s e o f s a i d l a n d s i t i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e L e s s o r s s h a l l r e c e i v e an undivided one-third (1/3) of a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d upon t h e a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d l a n d s d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 3 , 1974 and 1975 and t h a t t h e Lessee s h a l l r e c e i v e a n u n d i v i d e d t w o - t h i r d s (213) ~ f s a i d g r a i n c r o p s d u r i n g t h e y e a r 1972 and t h e r e ~ f t e throughout t h e term o f t h i s l e a s e . 11 r The t e r m s o f t h e f a r m s a l e a g r e e m e n t between s e l l e r ? a s h a and S u y e r Edwards p r o v i d e d t h a t Edwards would p r o v i d e w i n t e r wheat s e e d and Pasha would p l a n t d u r i n g t h e f a l l 1972. T h i s was done a r o u n d O c t o b e r 20 t o 23, 1972. Vaessen a s s i s t e d w i ~ h h e p l a n t i n g and a l s o w i t h t h e h a r v e s t i n 1973. t Edwards t e s t i f i e d t h e v a l u e o f t h e c r o p h a r v e s t e d i n 1973 was $ 1 8 , 5 6 9 . Edwards c l a i m s t h e e n t i r e 1973 wheat c r o p and Vaessen clai111s e n t i t l e m e n t t o t w o - t h i r d s o f a l l 1973 g r a i n c r o p s , i n c l u d i n g t h e 1973 w i n t e r wheat c r o p , less t h e e x p e n s e o f s e e d and h a r v e s t i n g which a r e t o b e p a i d by V a e s s e n , u n d e r t h e terms o f h i s l e a s e . 31 1 .luly 1 1 , L 9 7 4 , 9dwards r i l e d ~ d m p l a i r i ts c a r i n g 2 f:hdt d u r i n g t h e months 2f Oc tober-November, 1-973 Edwards had d e l i v e r e d t o d e f e n d a n t Peavey Company a g r a i n c r o p and t h a t i n e a r l y 1974 Edwards d i r e c t e d Peavey Company t o s e l l t h e g r a i n . The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d Peavey Company s o l d t h e g r a i n b u t wrong- r u l l y r e t a i n e d a p o r t i o n of t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e . The ~ m p l a i n tp r a y e d f o r t h e amount h e l d b y Peavey, $ 4 , 2 6 6 . 0 7 , p l u s i-ncerest . Roy Vaessen f i l e d a motion t o i n t e r v e n e a s d e f e n d a n t , i . ~ ~ u n t e r c l a i m a nand c r o s s c l a i m a n t t u n d e r R u l e 24, M.R.Civ.P., which was g r a n t e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . c l a i m and c r o s s c l a i m I n h i s answer, counter- Vaessen a s s e r t e d t h e money h e l d by Peavey Corllpany c o n s t i t u t e d ~ a e s s e n ' ss h a r e o f t h e 1973 g r a i n c r o p and heref fore i t w a s owed t o him r a t h e r t h a n t o Edwards. :'eavey Defendant Company answered by a d m i t t i n g i t h e l d t h e money, b u t t h a t i c was owed t o Peavey by b o t h Edwards and Vaessen. Edwards and Vaessen f i l e d a n s w e r s d e n y i n g P e a v e y ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m s . T r i a l was h e l d w i t h o u t a j u r y on ?.larch 3 1 , 1975. Prior t o t r i a l , Peavey Company moved t o amend i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t TSdwards and Vaessen b y w i t h d r a w i n g t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s s u b j e c t t o a w r i t t e n s t i p u l a t i o n ; the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s o ordered. The s t i p u l a - c i o n p r o v i d e d ( 1 ) t h a t Peavey s t o r e d a c e r t a i n p o r t i o n o f w i n t e r wheat and t h a t i t was h o l d i n g i t p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e t r i a l ; ( 2 ) t h a t Edwards owed n o t h i n g t o Peavey b u t Vaessen owed Peavey $1,300.85; (3) t h a t Peavey n e e d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e t r i a l . The c o u r t made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law which i n c l u d e d : a ) P u r s u a n t t o t h e t e r m s o f t h e lease, i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen was t o r e c e i v e a n u n d i v i d e d t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d f o r t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 3 , 1974 and 1975, and p l a i n t i f f was t o r e c e i v e o n e - t h i r d of t h e g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d d u r i n g t h e s a i d years. b) The f a r m l e a s e and a g r e e m e n t was d r a f t e d by ~ d w a r d s ' a t t o r n e y and d u r i n g t h e n e g o t i a t i o n l e a d i n g up t o t h e d r a f t i n g o f t h e f a r m l e a s e , t h e Edwards had t h e c o u n s e l and a d v i c e o f t h e i r b a n k e r , a c c o u n t a n t , and a t t o r n e y . C) T h a t t h e f a r m l e a s e i s n o t ambiguous a n d c o n t a i n s a l l t h e a g r e e m e n t s made between t h e p a r t i e s . d) T h a t i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen h a s on h i s p a r t d u l y performed a l l t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e l e a s e a g r e e m e n t b y h i m t o b e performed and c a r e d f o r and h a r v e s t e d t h e 1973 g r a i n d r o p s e x c e p t t h a t Edwards p a i d f o r t h e c o s t s o f t h e w i n t e r wheat s e e d and a p o r t i o n o f t h e c o s t s o f s w a t h i n g and h a r v e s t i n g t h e w i n t e r wheat c r o p , a l l o f which i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e terms o f t h e a g r e e m e n t s h o u l d have been p a i d f o r b y i n t e r v e n o r Roy V a e s s e n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t l i s t e d t h e expenses t o a t o t a l o f $2,051. e) T h a t t h e p r o c e e d s from t h e s a l e o f t h e 1973 w i n t e r whedt c r o p i s t h e sum o f $ 1 8 , 6 3 5 . 0 7 . f) T h a t b y t h e terms o f t h e l e a s e , i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen i s e n t i t l e d t o t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e p r o c e e d s i n t h e sum o f $12,423.37, l e s s t h e e x p e n s e s p a i d b y Edwards, which p u r s u a n t t o t h e l e a s e w e r e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n t e r v e n o r Roy Vaessen i n r h e sum o f $ 2 , 9 5 1 f o r a n e t t o t a l owed t o Roy Vaessen b y Edwards i n t h e sum o f $10,372.37. g) The c o u r t found Peavey Company e n t i t l e d t o $1,300.85 o f t h e $ 4 , 3 6 3 . 9 4 he'd b y i t and owed b y i n t e r v e n o r Vaessen. That Vaessen was e n t i t l e d t o t h e $ 4 , 3 6 3 . 9 4 h e l d b y Peavey Company, which w i l l b e a c r e d i t a g a i n s t t h e $10,372.37 owed i n t e r v e n o r b y Edwards. h) Under t h e t e r m s o f t h e l e a s e , i n t h e e v e n t o f l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e l o s i n g p a r t y s h a l l pay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o u r t costs. attorney fees I n i t s judgment t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s s e s s e d $ 7 5 0 / p l u s i n t e r e s t and c o s t s a g a i n s t Edwards. Judgment was e n t e r e d i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s 9f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. Edwards a p p e a l s . From t h a t judgment Edwards l o o k s t o t h i s language i n t h e farm l e a s e : "ik 9 9 L e s s e e s h a l l r e c e i v e an u n d i v i d e d two: ; t h i r d s (213) of s a i d g r a i n c r o p s d u r i n g t h e y e a r 1972 and t h e r e a f t e r t h r o u g h o u t t h e term o f t h i s l e a s e . 71 Edwards c l a i m s t h a t b e c a u s e n e i t h e r p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o any .c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n 1972 ( t h o s e c r o p s b e l o n g t o John P a s h a , t h e p r e v i o u s owner) t h i s c r e a t e s an u n c e r t a i n t y a s t o t h e ownership o f t h e w i n t e r wheat p l a n t e d i n 1972 and h a r v e s t e d i n 1973. Edwards c l a i m s t h i s a l l e g e d u n c e r t a i n t y of ownership o f t h e w i n t e r wheat c r o p h a r v e s t e d i n 1973 h a s been r e s o l v e d by t h e s u b s e q u e n t conduct o f the parties. He p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t s (1) t h a t t h e s e e d and sub- quent h a r v e s t i n g o f t h a t c r o p were p a i d f o r by Edwards, and ( 2 ) t h a t Vaessen d e l i v e r e d t h e w i n t e r wheat t o Peavey Company and s t o r e d i t i n Edwards' name a l o n e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t b o t h Edwards and Vaessen i n t e n d e d Edwards t o have complete ownership o f t h e 1973 w i n t e r wheat c r o p . These two f a c t s a r e c o n t r a r y t o t h e l e a s e b u t t h e y do n o t c l e a r l y e v i d e n c e a d e s i r e t o remake t h e s t a t e d p r o v i s i o n s i n the contract. Any c o n t r a c t , however made o r e v i d e n c e d , can b e d i s c h a r g e d o r modified by s u b s e q u e n t agreement of t h e p a r t i e s . The s u b s e q u e n t a g r e e m e n t , however, must i t s e l f comply w i t h t h e requirements of a c o n t r a c t , The a n t e c e d e n t agreement i s n o t d i s c h a r g e d by a l a t e r agreement t h a t i s v o i d f o r l a c k of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Power S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n v. J o s l i n , 175 F.2d 698. Under t h e terms of t h e l e a s e Vaessen i s e n t i t l e d t o t w o - t h i r d s of a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n 1973. To have him remake t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e l e a s e would r e q u i r e a d e q u a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . W f i n d no c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n e t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e c l a i m e d change i n t h e l e a s e agreement. Edwards c l a i m s t h a t Vaessen c o u l d have t w o - t h i r d s o f a w i n t e r wheat c r o p p l a n t e d i n 1975 and h a r v e s t e d i n 1976 p l a c e of t h e t w o - t h i r d s of t h e 1973 c r o p . --- in Again, t h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t would a l l o w Vaessen t o c l a i m any p a r t of t h e 1976 h a r v e s t . I t might v e r y w e l l b e t h a t t h e u s e of t h e y e a r 1972 i n t h e quoted p h r a s e from t h e farm l e a s e was n o t i n t e n d e d , b u t i t does n o t make t h e whole c o n t r a c t ambiguous. The i n t e n t o f t h e parties is clear. 17 Am J u r 2d, C o n t r a c t s $242, s t a t e s : Il It i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e t h a t a c o u r t may n o t made a new c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p a r t i e s o r r e w r i t e t h e i r c o n t r a c t under t h e g u i s e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . It must b e c o n s t r u e d and e n f o r c e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms employed, and a c o u r t h a s no r i g h t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e agreement a s meaning something d i f f e r e n t from what t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d a s e x p r e s s e d by t h e language t h e y saw f i t t o employ. I I ** T h i s w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e was e n u n c i a t e d i n B u l l a r d v. Smith, 28 Mont. 387, 399, 72 P. 761, where t h e Court s a i d : " I f i t [a c o n t r a c t ] i s p l a i n and unambiguous, i t needs no c o n s t r u c t i o n , and i t i s t h e d u t y of t h e c o u r t t o e n f o r c e t h e c o n t r a c t a s made by t h e p a r t i e s . II See a l s o : S e c t i o n s 13-704,. 13-705, R.C.M. 1947. The d e c i s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t gave t o t h e p a r t i e s e x a c t l y what t h e y b a r g a i n e d f o r i n t h e farm l e a s e . Vaessen r e c e i v e d t w o - t h i r d s of a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n t h e y e a r s 1973, 1974, and 1975; he was a s s e s s e d t h e expense o f s e e d and harvesting f o r those crops. Edwards r e c e i v e d o n e - t h i r d o f a l l g r a i n c r o p s h a r v e s t e d i n t h o s e y e a r s and b o r e no expenses f o r those crops. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . The r e s p o n d e n t Vaessen i s awarded t h e sum of $750 a s a t t o r n e y f e e s on t h e a p p e a l i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s c o s t s . W Concur: e Justice Justices Y Hone A r t h u r M a r t i n . D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t c i n g f o r c h i e f J u s t i c e * T... -" n- Ue*-:",.- - I -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
