Hanlon v. Anderson, 12264
| Decision Date | 01 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 12264,12264 |
| Citation | 29 St.Rep. 825,502 P.2d 51,160 Mont. 279 |
| Parties | Melvyn HANLON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L. P. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Lucas, Jardine & Monaghan, Thomas M. Monaghan, argued, Miles City, for defendant and appellant.
John L. Pratt, argued, Ask & Pratt, Roundup, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff entered upon findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial by the court without a jury in the sixteenth judicial district, county of Custer.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant for equipment sold and delivered to defendant on August 25, 1963. The amount of the judgment was $1,700.
The ultimate issue here is whether there is substantial credible evidence to support the rulings of the district court and its findings and conclusions. The three separate issues are set out later, but we approach the issues with an attempt at setting forth the rather confusing and unusual circumstances.
Plaintiff is one Melvyn Hanlon. Plaintiff did not appear at the trial. William Hanlon, father of plaintiff, appeared and supplied all the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff concerning the sale of the equipment.
William Hanlon had been in the oil business most of his life and operated as the Hanlon Drilling Co. In 1963 he was also the manager of Petro Fuel Refining Company. During that period, Hanlon, father of plaintiff, purchased tires from the L. P. Anderson Tire Co. Inc., a Montana corporation, of which L. P. Anderson, defendant herein, is president. The tires were billed to Hanlon Drilling Co., a business name of William Hanlon. The same William Hanlon was general manager, but not owner, of Petro Fuel Refining Company. The same William Hanlon directed the tire company to bill Petro Fuel for the tires, which was done. Finally the tire account grew to an amount of approximately $3,000.
At about this same time, one Contractor's Service, Inc. purchased some real property near Billings. This real property had been the 'yard site' of Hanlon Drilling Co. and owned by William Hanlon. Somehow, unexplained in the record, the Hanlon real property was purchased by Contractor's Service, Inc., which corporation had L. P. Anderson, the personal defendant here, as its president.
At about the same time the tire company, through its vice-president and manager, was pressing the Hanlon Drilling Co. through William Hanlon for payment of the tire bill. William Hanlon suggested that he had some equipment L. P. Anderson might be interested in buying and, according to one witness, a meeting between William Hanlon and L. P. Anderson was arranged. According to this same witness, the meeting was arranged at Hanlon's request in response to the press for payment for the tires by L. P. Anderson Tire Co.
The 'yard site' was where William Hanlon had numerous pieces of equipment stored. This site was now owned by Contractor's Service Inc., but William Hanlon continued to store his equipment there. At this point William Hanlon met with L. P. Anderson to discuss the possible sale of some of Hanlon's equipment and, according to L. P. Anderson, to discuss the tire bill of Petro Fuel Refining Company with L. P. Anderson Tire Co.
Anderson agreed to accept several items of equipment from Hanlon. Anderson's version is that he was acting as president of the tire company and agreed to offset the account of Petro Fuel Refining Company with the tire company. Hanlon's version is that it was a personal sale to L. P. Anderson on behalf of his son Melvyn Hanlon, plaintiff here.
William Hanlon, on August 25, 1963 billed as follows:
"Drilling Contractor Billings, Montana
August 25, 1963
"Sold to
"L. P. Anderson
"Miles City, Montana
"In Account with
"HANLON DRILLING CO
"120 North 30th Street
"Box 1724
"Billings, Montana
"1 - Hydraulic Puller, Complete $250.00
"1 - 7 1/4 x 18 Oil Well Mud Pump 450.00
"1 - Lathe 600.00
"1 - Free Roll 'For Truck' 50.00
"Gas Tanks and Pump 350.00
---------
"Total $1700.00"
About a year and one half later, on January 5, 1965, another billing was made:
"Drilling Contractor Billings, Montana
January 5, 1965
"L. P. Anderson
"Miles City, Montana
"In account with
"HANLON DRILLING CO
"120 North 30th Street
"Box 1724
"Billings, Montana
"Due: Melvyn L. Hanlon
"8/25/63- One Hydraulic Puller
Complete $250.00
"One 7 1/4 x 18 Oilwell Pump 450.00
"One Shop Lathe 600.00
"One Free Roll for Truckbed 50.00
"Yard Underground Gas Pumps
& Tanks 350.00
"TOTAL DUE MELVIN
L. HANLON $1,700.00"
Here, for the first time, the name of the plaintiff, Melvyn Hanlon, appears. William Hanlon had never informed anyone of Melvyn's status. L. P. Anderson had never met nor dealt with Melvyn.
In October 1966, this action was filed in Yellowstone County. The venue was changed to Custer County. Plaintiff through his then attorney of record was informed by Mr. Anderson's attorney that the action should be against L. P. Anderson Tire Co., rather than Anderson personally. In December 1966, then counsel for plaintiff asked defendant's counsel to stipulate that the tire company could be substituted as a defendant. Defendant's counsel in a letter dated January 2, 1967, did so stipulate. However, plaintiff never did amend the complaint to include the corporate defendant.
The matter lay dormant from 1967 until 1971. On March 6, 1971, William Hanlon wrote the following letter:
'Mr. Sam Ohnstad
'Secretary & Treasurer of L. P. Anderson Companies
'Box 190
'Miles City Montana 59301
'Dear Mr. Ohnstad:
'In reply to yours of January 15, 1971, I wish to remind you, that this Lathe was included along with other Equipment, which I sold to L. P. Anderson for the sum of $1750.00, which amount is still due me and must be paid to me. Which means that I claim no rights in the Lathe and so far as I am concerned, you own it and can do as you wish it.
'In the past several years and when the Lathe was inside and out of the Weather, I was approached several times, by persons interested in purchasing same and in each instant, I informed them that, it belonged to L. P. ANDERSON. At this time I am sure that it could have been sold for several times the amount you are now, being offered.
'Surely you must be acquainted with fact that the other Equipment which I sold to Anderson has been sold by you and apparently there was no doubt on your part asto ownership, which is correct, since you had purchased same from me and still owe for same. Now, how come all at once I have an interest, in the only piece of Equipment left on the premises.
'I do owe L. P. Anderson Tire Company the sum of $150.00 which, I plan to pay just as soon as I receive payment of the $1750.00 due me.
'I have been informed that you are trying to charge me with the account of Petro Fuel Refining Company, a Corporation, who employed me as their General Manager this account I understand is around $1500.00. You surely remember that on occasions previously, Petro had paid their account with the tire Company, by exchanging Diesel Fuel as payment and you surely must remember that Petro tried to get you to take Diesel and clean up the account, on several occasions.
'I stopped to see L. P. in regard to paying me for the Equipment, at which time, he told you in my presence to issue me a check. You in turn, said you could not do it at this time and that I could expect it later. At this same time I mentioned that Petro would like to pay up their account, by delivering some of their Diesel in an amount sufficient to clean up their account, this was nothing new as it had been handled this way before.
'At no time did I ever agree or intimate, that I was responsible for any Petro purchases and I am sure that at that time, you preferred Petro's credit to Hanlon's.
'I agree with you that this should be straightened out and can be, by just paying me for the Equipment ($1750).
S/ 'William Hanlon'
Subsequently trial was had on December 14, 1971, without a jury. The court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
'FINDINGS OF FACT
'I
'That on or about the 25th day of August, 1963, Plaintiff was the owner of the following described property:
'1 Hydraulic Puller, complete
'1 7 1/4 18 Oil Well Pump
'1 Shop Lathe
'1 Free Roll 'For Truck' Bed
'Underground gas tanks and pumps
'II
'That on or about the 25th day of August, 1963, William Hanlon, the Plaintiff's father, acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, entered into an agreement with L. P. Anderson, the Defendant, whereby the Defendant agreed to pay $1,700.00 for the above described property.
'III
'That possession and ownership of the above described property passed to the Defendant at the time of the sale.
'IV
'That on or about the 25th day of August, 1963, some of the above described property was removed from its location at the time of the sale.
'V
'That after August 25, 1963, Plaintiff never again enjoyed the use or possession of the above described property.
'VI
'That Defendant was billed for the above described property on August 25, 1963, and again in 1965. The bill which was sent to the Defendant in 1965 clearly indicated that the sale price for the property was owed to Melvyn Hanlon, the Plaintiff herein.
'VII
'That Defendant retained each statement which was sent to him and failed to object to the correctness of the statements or to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powers' Estate, In re
...the issue of competency, we are aware of the rules recently discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Hanlon v. Anderson, Mont., 502 P.2d 51, 29 St.Rep. 825, and cases cited therein. Generally stated the rule is that this Court will sustain a determination of fact by a trial......