Harmon v. Hanson's Pump & Mach. Works, Inc.

Decision Date31 August 1966
Docket NumberNo. 1,CA-CIV,1
Citation417 P.2d 741,4 Ariz.App. 107
PartiesRichard F. HARMON, dba Harmon Ranches of Aguila, Appellant, v. HANSON'S PUMP & MACHINE WORKS, INC., an Arizona corporation, Appellee. 244.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals

Rawlins, Ellis, Burrus & Kiewit, by Chester J. Peterson, Phoenix, for appellant.

Richmond, Ajamie & Fay, by William J. Richmond, Phoenix, for appellee.

CAMERON, Judge.

Plaintiff, Hanson's Pump and Machine Works, Inc., sued the defendant, Richard F. Harmon, upon an oral contract for the repair of a 400 horsepower water pump motor on defendant's farm in Aguila, Arizona. The matter was tried before the court without a jury, and from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $3,318.13 plus costs, the defendant brings this appeal.

We are called upon to determine whether there was a sufficient variance between the allegata and probata to deny plaintiff judgment.

The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows: Defendant Richard Harmon, dba Harmon Ranches of Aguila, requested that the plaintiff repair a 400 horsepower Peerless Water Pump Motor on defendant's ranch near Aguila, Arizona. This pump and motor had been first installed in 1958. The repairs were made after a discussion between the Field Sales Engineer of the plaintiff and Mr. Hanson. The testimony of the engineer is as follows:

'He said, 'My sand power is burning up, I need water'. I told him at that time I didn't have a loaner I could put up there, that the motor would have to come in and be rewound. He said, 'How long would it take to do this?', and I said by putting a rusher on it we should have it out in a couple of days at the location.'

This was done and the testimony at the trial indicates that the charges in the amount of $3,318,13 were fair and reasonable for the services performed.

The testimony indicates that there was a ninety day warranty on the motor, and within that period of time the motor burned out. Plaintiff 'made good' on the warranty, and replaced the motor on the pump with a 'brand new and rewound motor's out of plaintiff's stock and put it on the well at the ranch.

Defendant failed to pay the amount for the repair, and plaintiff sued alleging:

'That the oral contract so entered into was duly and carefully performed in a good and workmanlike manner by the plaintiff and that the fair and reasonable cost of such work, services, parts and supplies as were required to restore said irrigation pump motor to working condition was the sum of three thousand, five hundred, twenty-nine dollars and sixty-three cents ($3,529.63).'

Defendant answered by filing what was, in effect, a general denial, and during the trial objected to testimony concerning the replacement pump and other acts which would show that plaintiff had 'made good' the warranty, said objections being made on the basis that such matters were outside the pleadings.

No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested by the parties and none were given. We must therefore affirm if possible on any theory within the issues and supported by the evidence. Moeur v. City of Tempe, 3 Ariz.App. 196, 412 P.2d 878 (1966), Ensign v. Bohn, 1 Ariz.App. 386, 403 P.2d 321 (1965).

Defendant on appeal contends quite simply that plaintiff having claimed damages under an oral contract for repair and that since the repaired motor 'burned out', the issue raised by the pleadings of whether or not plaintiff duly and carefully performed the original repairs in a good and workmanlike manner, has been answered in the negative and under the state of the pleadings the plaintiff may take nothing.

Defendant cites Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 3 de julho de 1979
    ...issues and supported by the evidence." Gabitzch v. Cole, 95 Ariz. 15, 18, 386 P.2d 23, 25 (1963); Harmon v. Hanson's Pump & Machine Works, Inc., 4 Ariz.App. 107, 109, 417 P.2d 741, 743 (1966). Further, we must assume that the court found every fact necessary to support its judgment. Estate ......
  • Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 16 de maio de 1978
    ... ... Harmon v. Hanson's Pump & Machine Works, Inc., 4 Ariz.App. 107, ... ...
  • Rutherford v. John O'Lexey's Boat and Yacht Ins., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 2 de fevereiro de 1978
    ... ... 226, 527 P.2d 97 (1974); Harmon v. Hanson's Pump and Machine Works, Inc., 4 ... ...
  • Bud Antle, Inc. v. Gregory
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 6 de março de 1968
    ...of fact essential to support the judgment. Rosen v. Hadden, 81 Ariz. 194, 303 P.2d 267 (1956), Harmon v. Hanson's Pump & Machine Works, Inc., 4 Ariz.App. 107, 417 P.2d 741 (1966). Although this action concerns a contract for the hauling of culls at the operation in Los Banos, California, it......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT