AGRILEASE iNC v GRAY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13495 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O MONTANA F 1977 AGRILEASE, I N C . , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , T E M GRAY, HL A D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . _______-_-_____--_-___--------_----__-----------T E M GRAY, HL A Third P a r t y P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, AGRILEASE, I N C . , T h i r d P a r t y Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H o n o r a b l e J a c k D. S h a n s t r m , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: H u t t o n , Sheehy and Cromley, B i l l i n g s , Montana J o h n C. Sheehy a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: David DePuy a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: J U L I P igiii May 2 3 , 1977 JuL S F 1971 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County, a r i s e s from a judgment where two c a u s e s of a c t i o n were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r t r i a l and t r i e d by a j u r y . A g r i l e a s e , I n c . i s p l a i n t i f f i n one a c t i o n and t h i r d p a r t y defendant i n t h e o t h e r . Thelma Gray i s d e f e n d a n t i n one a c t i o n a n d t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f i n t h e o t h e r . Agrilease appeals i n both cases. I n F e b r u a r y 1974, Thelma Gray, a r a n c h e r a l o n g t h e Yellowstone R i v e r , s o u t h of L i v i n g s t o n , Montana, c o n t r a c t e d w i t h A g r i l e a s e , I n c . o f B i l l i n g s , Montana, f o r a pumping a n d i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m d e s i g n e d t o t a k e w a t e r from t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r and t o r a i s e i t o v e r 100 f e e t t o undeveloped l a n d f o r t h e purpose of r a i s i n g a l f a l f a . $34,235.00. The o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t was f o r T h e r e a f t e r changes r e q u i r i n g e x t r a work a n d material u l t i m a t e l y r a i s e d t h e t o t a l c o s t t o $42,559.29. payments on t h e c o n t r a c t - - $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 $7,500 on May 31, 1974. Gray made two on F e b r u a r y 26, 1974; a n d No o t h e r payments were made. Thelma Gray owned w a t e r r i g h t s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y l , O O O m i n e r ' s i n c h e s o u t o f t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . The p l a n was f o r a pumping s y s t e m t h a t would t a k e 500 i n c h e s o f w a t e r o u t o f t h e r i v e r t o b e u s e d t o i r r i g a t e p r e v i o u s l y undeveloped l a n d . M r . B i c k , a c t i n g f o r Agrilease, p l a c e d a p u r c h a s e o r d e r w i t h Worthington V e r t i c a l Pump C o r p o r a t i o n on F e b r u a r y 21, 1974, f o r a pump t h a t would pump and r a i s e some 4,000 g a l l o n s p e r m i n u t e t o t h e l a n d s t o be i r r i g a t e d . H e r e q u e s t e d s h i p m e n t by May 21, b u t t h e company i n i t s acknowledgement o f t h e o r d e r gave September 13 a s t h e d e l i v e r y d a t e f o r t h e pump. The pump d i d n o t a r r i v e u n t i l l a t e O c t o b e r when i t was i n s t a l l e d . Gray t e s t i f i e d and was s u p p o r t e d by w i t n e s s e s who worked on t h e r a n c h , t h a t B i c k a s s u r e d h e r he would have t h e system i n s t a l l e d a n d working b e f o r e June 1, 1974. Bick denies t h i s and t e s t i f i e d he d i d e v e r y t h i n g he c o u l d t o g e t t h e pump by June 1, b u t due t o t h e Arabian o i l c r i s i s o f 1973 i n d u s t r i a l goods were h a r d t o get, went u p i n p r i c e , a n d h e had problems of s u p p l y , shipment a n d delivery. The t e s t i m o n y c l e a r l y shows Gray i n d i c a t e d t o B i c k s h e p l a n n e d t o b r e a k u p a n d p l a n t some 85 a c r e s o f p r e v i o u s l y undeveloped land t o r a i s e a l f a l f a . I n f a c t , t h a t was t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e p r o j e c t and B i c k t o g e t t h e c o n t r a c t s u r v e y e d t h e l a n d f o r d i t c h e s and l e v e l i n g . planted and harvested. He was aware t h e l a n d was plowed, Due t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e pump t o a r r i v e on t i m e f o r t h e 1974 h a y c r o p , t h e h a r v e s t was a d i s a s t e r . The c r o p burned u p i n May a n d June and o n l y 70 t o n s were r e a l i z e d , when 155 t o 1 6 0 t o n s were a n t i c i p a t e d i f i r r i g a t i o n had been available. Even t h e 70 t o n s would n o t have been p o s s i b l e , e x c e p t B i c k f u r n i s h e d a small pump t o g e t some water t o t h e a c r e a g e . He t e s t i f i e d i t c o s t him more t h a n $5,000 t o d o t h i s t o a s s i s t Gray. I n a d d i t i o n Gray t e s t i f i e d s h e l o s t p a s t u r e i n 1974, due t o t h e f a i l u r e of t h e pump t o a r r i v e a n d s h e had t o p u r c h a s e hay t h a t y e a r . To e s t a b l i s h t h e pumping system B i c k h a d t o b u i l d a r e t a i n i n g w a l l n e a r t h e r i v e r and t o p r o v i d e i n l e t s from t h e l o w e r p a r t o f t h e w a l l i n t o two sumps o r wet walls i n t o which t h e Worthington pump was t o be i n s e r t e d t o remove w a t e r from t h e r i v e r a n d o u t i n t o t h e p i p e l i n e and t h e n i n t o t h e d i t c h e s . Approximately 2,200 f e e t o f 1 2 i n c h p i p e l i n e was t o b e u s e d . Although t h e c o n t r a c t w a s s i g n e d i n F e b r u a r y a n d o r d e r s were p l a c e d f o r t h e pump a n d t h e p i p e i n F e b r u a r y , B i c k d i d n o t s t a r t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r e t a i n i n g walls u n t i l e a r l y May. This proved t o b e a bit l a t e f o r as usual. i n t h e s p r i n g t h e r i v e r r i s e s r a p i d l y and i n 1974 t h e r e was a n u n u s u a l l y heavy r u n - o f f . Bick t e s t i f i e d he b u i l t a d i k e f i v e t i m e s , t h e w a t e r coming over each time, t o g e t r e t a i n i n g wall f o o t i n g s and f o u n d a t i o n s e s t a b lished. The s t e e l p i p e a r r i v e d i n l a t e A p r i l , t h e motor t o d r i v e t h e pump came i n May, t h e sump i n s t a l l a t i o n was f i n i s h e d i n l a t e August, a l l t o o l a t e t o be of much h e l p t o t h e 1974 c r o p . The pump a r r i v e d and was i n s t a l l e d and was a t t a c h e d t o t h e p i p e a l r e a d y i n p l a c e i n October. Bick t e s t e d t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e pumping system i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f Mrs. Gray and h e r employees and no problems were found w i t h t h e system a t t h a t t i m e . The c o n t r a c t c a l l e d f o r a f i n a l payment upon t h e ~ o m p l e t i ~ o n of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e system and i t b e i n g p u t i n t o o p e r a t i o n . It was completed i n l a t e Q c t o b e r b u t Gray made no payment t h e n o r a f t e r t h a t d a t e , a l t h o u g h she a d m i t s i t was due. Statements were s e n t monthly t h e r e a f t e r and no p r o t e s t s were h e a r d from Gray. To p r o t e c t i t s e l f A g r i l e a s e , I n c . f i l e d a mechanic's l i e n a g a i n s t Mrs. G r a y ' s r a n c h i n t h e amount of $20,059.29. I n May 1975, Bick was c a l l e d t o t h e r a n c h t o s t a r t t h e system working. A f t e r s t a r t i n g up i t seemed t o work, s o he s h u t i t o f f and t h e n s t a r t e d i t up when a " ~ u r p h ys w i t c h " , a s a f e t y d e v i c e broke and had t o be removed and t a k e n t o B i l l i n g s . This was n o t r e p l a c e d u n t i l June 15, 1975. Thereafter, e a r l y i n J u l y a v i b r a t i o n developed and on August 7 o r 8, Bick removed t h e pump from i t s w e l l and found t h e s t r a i n e r s u r r o u n d i n g t h e s u c t i o n end o f t h e pump had c o l l a p s e d , and a r o c k had e n t e r e d and lodged i n t h e i m p e l l e r . Bick a g r e e d t o t a k e t h e pump t o h i s shop i n B i l l i n g s b u t asked Gray t o pay o f f t h e b a l a n c e of t h e c o n t r a c t , o r a t l e a s t $10,000. She a g r e e d b u t d i d n o t pay, s o Bick r e f u s e d t o go ahead w i t h t h e r e p a i r s . He took t h e pump and i t s motor and h e l d them i n h i s shop. A s a r e s u l t Gray a l l e g e d a l o s s of t h e 1975 hay c r o p . B i c k a l l e g e d t h e s y s t e m would have worked w i t h o u t t h e " ~ u r p h y s w i t c h " , b u t t h a t made l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e jury. The i s s u e of n e g l i g e n c e i n n o t s c r e e n i n g t h e i n l e t s t o the t h e sump pump was s u b m i t t e d t o / j u r y a n d i t found a g a i n s t B i c k . A judgment awarded A g r i l e a s e , I n c . damages a g a i n s t Mrs. Gray i n a n amount o f $20,059.29; a n d a n award f o r Mrs. Gray a g a i n s t A g r i l e a s e i n t h e sum o f $22,397 o r a n e t amount t o Mrs. Gray of $2,337.71. A p p e l l a n t A g r i l e a s e , I n c . r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n amending t h e v e r d i c t form, o v e r o b j e c t i o n , and s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e j u r y a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n s were s e t t l e d , a n i s s u e of damages t o t h e pump, when s u c h damages were n o t p l e a d , were n o t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e and were n o t c o v e r e d by j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s ? 2. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e j u r y , o v e r o b j e c t i o n s , t h e i s s u e o f damages f o r t h e l o s s o f t h e hay c r o p f o r t h e y e a r 1974, where t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e o f t h e market v a l u e o f t h e h a y c r o p was b a s e d on g r o s s m a r k e t v a l u e , w i t h o u t d e d u c t i n g t h e c o s t of production and marketing such crop? 3. Is A g r i l e a s e I n c . e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t a s a m a t t e r o f law? 4. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r a n o f f s e t t o t h e A g r i l e a s e c l a i m f o r t h e payment of t h e L i n v i l l e [ s u b c o n t r a c t o r u n d e r ~ g r i l e a s e ]l i e n i n e x c e s s o f $2,139.36? I s s u e 1. T h i s i s s u e c o n c e r n s amendment o f t h e v e r d i c t form a f t e r a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s had been s e t t l e d . The p o s t u r e o f t h e c a s e was t h a t b o t h s i d e s had r e s t e d , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s were s e t t l e d , a n d A g r i l e a s e , I n c . had o f f e r e d a v e r d i c t form f o r submission t o the jury. A t t h a t p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r Gray moved t h e c o u r t t o amend t h e v e r d i c t form, s o t h e j u r y c o u l d make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s on s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e s . One amendment allowed permitted t h e jury t o award a sum f o r damages t o t h e pump and t h e jury awarded $4,799 damages. judge allowed t h e amendment he noted: A t t h e time t h e t r i a l "There was no proof i n t h e r e a t a l l a s t o what i t would c o s t t o r e p a i r i t . " W a g r e e and f i n d t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n allowing t h i s e amendment. Here, t h e complaint s e t f o r t h seven counts; none covered t h e c o s t of r e p a i r t o t h e pump o r t h e damages t o t h e pump. N e f f o r t was made t o prove t h e c o s t of r e p a i r o r t h a t o t h e pump o r t h e system s u s t a i n e d any l o s s i n market value by v i r t u e of t h e damaged pump. The s o l e evidence a s t o t h e value of t h e pump appears from A g r i l e a s e l s e x h i b i t , t h e purchase o r d e r , i n d i c a t i n g a c o s t of $4,000. There was nothing i n t h e r e c o r d f o r t h e jury t o base a market value on, due t o t h e damage t o t h e pump o r t h e c o s t of r e p a i r . N i n s t r u c t i o n s were given on o t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r t h e pump, nothing s u p p o r t s t h e $4,747 f i g u r e . Gray argues t h e r e was evidence t h e pump c o s t $4,000; t h a t i t was badly damaged and t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r i t would be a t l e a s t $4,000. Gray c i t e s a s a u t h o r i t y t o amend a v e r d i c t form t h e c a s e of Smith v'. Jacobsen, 224 O r . 627, 356 P.2d 421. . Neither t h i s case nor c a s e s l a t e r c i t i n g i t a s a u t h o r i t y f o r amending pleadings allowed an amendment a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e c a s e . Dorr v. Janssen, 233 O r . 505, 378 P.2d 999; Beard v. Beard, 232 O r . 552, 376 P.2d 404, 406; Eck v. Market Basket, 264 O r . 400, 505 P.2d 1156. I n Beard t h e Oregon Court noted: "* * * amendment i s allowed w i t h reasonable l i b e r a l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e m a t t e r covered by t h e amendment i s s u f f i c i e n t l y brought t o t h e n o t i c e of t h e a d v e r s a r y i n t h e o r i g i n a l pleading and during t h e t r i a l s o t h a t he can be prepared t o meet t h e i s s u e . " 376 P'.2d 406. That i s n o t t h e case b e f o r e u s . Here, Gray d i d n o t move t o amend h e r pleadings t o conform t o t h e evidence, r a t h e r she moved t o amend t h e v e r d i c t form t o i n c l u d e a n i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o damages t o t h e motor c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e . The h o l d i n g o f t h i s C o u r t i n Lovely v. Burroughs Gorp., 165 Mont. 209, 217, 527 P.2d 557, controls : a am ages may p r o p e r l y be awarded when t h e y s e r v e t o compensate t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r d e t r i m e n t proximately caused by t h e defendant. Section 17-301, R.C.M. 1947. B e f o r e a n award c a n be made, t h e damages must be c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e i n b o t h t h e i r n a t u r e a n d o r i g i n . S e c t i o n 17-302, R.C.M. 1947. Damages which a r e a m a t t e r of mere s p e c u l a t i o n c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s of r e c o v e r y . [ c i t i n g c a s e s ] " 165 Mont. 217. G r a y ' s r e l i a n c e on Bos v . Dola jak, P.2d 1258, d o e s n o t b e a r f r u i t . and c a p a b l e o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 167 Mont. 1, 534 There t h e damages were c e r t a i n Here, t h e y a r e n o t . To r e c o v e r t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g damages f o r l o s s o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y must show i t s v a l u e b e f o r e a n d a f t e r o r t h e c o s t o f Y e p a i r . Dola jak, s u p r a ; Spackman v . Ralph M. P a r s o n s Co., Bos v . 147 Mont. 500, 414 P.2d 918. Issue 2. T h i s i s s u e c o n c e r n s a l l e g e d e r r o r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on damages f o r l o s s o f t h e 1974 h a y c r o p . A g r i l e a s e a l l e g e s e v i d e n c e of t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e h a y was b a s e d on t h e g r o s s m a r k e t v a l u e , w i t h o u t d e d u c t i n g t h e c o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n and m a r k e t i n g . Here, t h e j u r y awarded $13,585 f o r t h e l o s s o f t h e h a y c r o p a n d f o r u s e o f p a s t u r e o c c a s i o n e d by A g r i l e a s e f s f a i l u r e t o g e t water t o the crop. No v a l u e was a s s e s s e d t o t h e 1974 hay crop loss i n the verdict. While Gray c l a i m e d damages f o r a l o s s o f 155 t o n s , v a l u e d a t $43 p e r t o n , s h e d i d r e c o v e r a b o u t 70 t o n s from t h e f i r s t c u t t i n g , b u t t h e r e was n o e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on t h e c o s t o f plowing, weeding, o r h a r v e s t i n g t h a t c r o p . The c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d as t o damages: a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e measure o f damages f o r t h e l o s s o f c r o p s a n d f o r a g e i s t h e market v a l u e l e s s c o s t s o f growing t h e "YOU c r o p s and f o r a g e s i f s o l d b y t h e grower, however, i f t h e grower of t h e c r o p s o r f o r a g e u s e s t h e c r o p s and f o r a g e l o s t f o r o t h e r f e e d f o r t h e g r o w e r ' s l i v e s t o c k t h e n t h e measure o f damages i s t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e c r o p s a n d f o r a g e 10st I ' . T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n was improper and c a u s e d e r r o r due t o t h e f a c t i t gave n o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e c o s t f a c t o r s . W find e no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o where t h e c r o p s a r e u s e d t o f e e d t h e g r o w e r ' s c a t t l e , t h e p r o d u c t i o n c d s t s a r e t o be d e d u c t e d . While Gray t e s t i f i e d s h e had t o p u r c h a s e hay t o r e p l a c e h e r 1974 c r o p l o s s , s h e d i d n o t t e s t i f y how much was p u r c h a s e d o r a t what p r i c e . Gray r e l i e s on t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n E a b l o n s k i v . C l o s e , 70 Mont. 292, 2 2 5 P. 129. That c a s e i s n o t i n p o i n t f o r t h e r e t e s t i m o n y was p e r m i t t e d , b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o t a n e s t a b l i s h e d o r known market v a l u e f o r t i m o t h y h a y . Here, t h e m a r k e t v a l u e was e s t a b l i s h e d b y Gray and o t h e r w i t n e s s e s . I n a: l a t e r c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e l o s s o f a hay c r o p , . G o e t s c h i u s v . L a s i c h , 137 Mont. 465, 476, 353 P.2d 87, t h e C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s r u l e f o r a s c e r t a i n i n g damages: "NO c a l c u l a t i o n was made of t h e e x p e n s e o f h a r v e s t i n g o r m a r k e t i n g t h e d r o p , which s h o u l d have been f i g u r e d i n showing n e t l o s s . I n e s t i m a t i n g h i s damages, h e i n c l u d e d $114.20 f o r t h a t which was n e c e s s a r y t o b e done i n o r d e r t o r a i s e a c r o p , and t h e a c t u a l damages he c o u l d r e c o v e r , would be $244, i f n o cons i d e r a t i o n be given c o s t of marketing, o r h a r v e s t i n g c r o p , The c o u r t gave him a judgment f o r $395.55 on a c c o u n t o f l o s s of crop a g a i n s t a l l defendants. "on t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d , i t would a p p e a r t h a t i f t h e p l a i n t i f f s s h o u l d have g r o s s e d $244 from t h e i r c r o p , w i t h n e c e s s a r y p r e p a r a t i o n , and had a n e x p e n s e i n p r o d u c i n g t h e c r o p o f $114.20, t h e i r n e t l o s s would be $129.80. W know o f n o r u l e o f law which e would j u s t i f y t h e a l l o w a n c e s which were made i n t h i s c a s e . " 137 Mont. 476. T h i s c a s e f o l l o w s t h e l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e o f law i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t only t h e n e t value, n o t t h e g r o s s value of l o s t crops Carron v. Wood, 10 Mont. 500, 2 6 P. 388; c a n be r e c o v e r e d . Hopkins v . B u t t e & Montana Commercial Co., 16 Mont. 356, 40 P. 865; Rass v . Sharp, 46 Mont. 474, 1 2 8 P. 594. I s s u e 3. This i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o whether o r n o t A g r i l e a s e i s e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e o f t h e contract. S e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s as t o c o n t r a c t c l a i m s , t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n who i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r damages c e r t a i n , o r c a p a b l e o f b e i n g c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n , a n d t h e r i g h t t o r e c o v e r which i s v e s t e d i n him on a d a y c e r t a i n i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n from t h a t d a y . Respondent Gray a r g u e s t h a t A g r i l e a s e , I n c . c l a i m e d i t e m s t o which i t was n o t e n t i t l e d , s o t h e a c c o u n t between them was n o t " c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n " , t h e r e f o r e n o i n t e r e s t . In s u p p o r t r e s p o n d e n t c i t e s Daly v. S w i f t & Co., 90 Mont. 52, 300 P. 265; S c h o o l D i s t . No. 1. v . Globe & R e p u b l i c I n s . Co., Mont. 208, 404 P.2d 8 8 9 . 146 W find these cases not applicable t o e the f a c t situation i n the instant case. I n e f f e c t , what r e s p o n d e n t a r g u e s i s t h a t t h e r e c o v e r y o f i n t e r e s t on a l i q u i d a t e d c l a i m c a n be d e f e a t e d by a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a n u n l i q u i d a t e d amount. W d o n o t a g r e e , n o r d o we f i n d a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f r e s p o n d e n t t s e argument. The c o n t r a c t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e p r o v i d e d f o r t h e f i n a l payment on t h e day t h e s y s t e m w a s p l a c e d i n o p e r a t i o n . That date came i n l a t e October 1974, a n d Gray r e c e i v e d monthly s t a t e m e n t s t h e r e a f t e r by c e r t i f i e d m a i l . A t t r i a l the jury returned a v e r d i c t i n t h e e x a c t amount o f t h o s e monthly s t a t e m e n t s $20,059.29, b u t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r i n t e r e s t due t o a n e r r o r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n f a i l i n g t o a p p r o v e a n i n s t r u c t i o n on a n a c c o u n t s t a t e d . S e v e r a l C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u e s e c t i o n 17204, R.C.M. 1947, as i t was t a k e n from t h e C a l i f o r n i a Code, S e c t i o n 3287. The most r e c e n t C a l i f o r n i a c a s e T r i p p v. Swaap, 1 3 1 C a l . R p t r . 789, 552 P.2d 749, 757, s e t s o u t t h e f a c t o r s n e c e s s a r y t o s a t i s f y S e c t i o n 3287: "Under S e c t i o n 3287, s u b d i v i s i o n ( a ) as i n t e r p r e t e d i n Mass, s u p r a , a c l a i m a n t must s a t i s f y t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y of i n t e r e s t i n a mandamus a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e : ( 1 ) There must be a n u n d e r l y i n g monetary o b l i g a t i o n ; ( 2 ) t h e r e c o v e r y must be c e r t a i n o r c a p a b l e of b e i n g made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n ; and ( 3 ) t h e r i g h t t o r e c o v e r must v e s t on a p a r t i c u l a r day. I t 552 P.2d 757 See a l s o : Hansen v . Covell, 218 Cal. 622, 24 P.2d 772; Lineman v. Schmid, 32 C.2d 204, 195 P.2d 408; Anno. 60 ALR3d 487, 512. Here A g r i l e a s e f u l f i l l e d t h e t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n Tripp t o recover i n t e r e s t . I t s r i g h t t o payment a c c r u e d as of October 1974, and t h e payment was f o r a n amount c e r t a i n . All t h a t happened t h e r e a f t e r i n t h e summer of 1975 t o t h e " ~ u r p h y s w i t c h " and t o t h e pump does n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l c o n t r a c t payment d a t e . A s f o r t h e items t h a t might r e d u c e t h a t sum, t h e unused pipe, t h e u s e o f G r a y ' s t r a c t o r , e t c . , a r e a l l e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e and can be made c e r t a i n a t any t i m e . O fietrial n A g r i l e a s e i s e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t as a m a t t e r o f law. Issue 4. This i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d a t t h e c o u r t ' s e r r o r i n allowing t h e jury t o consider the o f f s e t t o the Agrilease c l a i m f o r t h e payment of t h e L i n v i l l e l i e n i n e x c e s s of $2,139.49. L i n v i l l e was t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r who f i l e d a l i e n on G r a y ' s p r o p e r t y f o r payment of i t s a c c o u n t f o r e l e c t r i c a l s e r v i c e s perfomed on t h e pump and t h e i r r i g a t i o n system. The a c t i o n t o f o r e c l o s e t h e l i e n was s e t t l e d j u s t p r i o r t o t r i a l . I f Gray had p a i d A g r i l e a s e t h e b a l a n c e of t h e c o n t r a c t when t h a t a c c o u n t was due, t h e mechanic's l i e n by L i n v i l l e would n o t have been f i l e d , f o r L i n v i l l e would t h e n have been p a i d by A g r i l e a s e , Inc. The t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d t h e jury t o award, by i t s i n s t r u c t i o n , Gray t h e sum of $2,481. This amounted t o a payment of i n t e r e s t t o L i n v i l l e and i t s a t t o r n e y f e e s . This award was improper and s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a t r e t r i a l . The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a s e i s remanded f o r new t r i a l , u n l e s s i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , Gray a g r e e s t o a c c e p t a r e d u c t i o n of $12,113.51 p l u s i n t e r e s t from h e r t o t a l r e c o v e r y w i t h i n 30 d a y s . W Concur: e Justices

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.