Harmon v. Noland

• Decision Date: 03 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 9415,9415
• Citation: 90 Idaho 494,413 P.2d 897
• Parties: Charles E. HARMON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J. D. NOLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 897

413 P.2d 897

90 Idaho 494

Charles E. HARMON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J. D. NOLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9415.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

May 3, 1966.

Earl E. Walker, Twin Falls, for appellant.

Murphy, Schwartz & Cunningham, Shoshone, for respondent.

McQUADE, Justice.

In March 1960 plaintiff-respondent Charles E. Harmon entered into a written agreement wherein he leased certain farmlands from the defendant-appellant J. D. Noland. Expiration date of the lease was November 1, 1961. Prior to October, 1, 1961, appellant served respondent with notice that the lease would be terminated and possession was requested as of November 1, 1961. Appellant granted respondent an extension to November 16, 1961. On or about December 13, 1961, respondent was served with a three-day notice to vacate. Respondent immediately proceeded to remove his possessions from the premises and in fact did remove most of them within this three-day period. However, respondent was unable to remove some ensilage, hay and straw at that time. On five different occasions shortly thereafter, respondent attempted to remove this remaining property from the farm but was prevented from doing so by appellant. Appellant claimed that respondent owed him money and, therefore, would deny respondent access to the premises for removal of the property until the account between them was settled.

Respondent instituted this action in claim and delivery and for damages sustained by reason of the appellant's wrongful conversion of respondent's property and also seeking punitive damages. Shortly after Christmas 1961, pursuant to an order of replevin served by the sheriff on appellant, respondent was able to recover his property from the farm. The appellant cross-claimed, seeking damages for: various debts allegedly owed to appellant by respondent; injuries to appellant's property caused by respondent; and personal injuries sustained because of repondent's attempted wrongful entries by force and threat of violence. The trial court, sitting without a jury, awarded respondent $500 damages but denied him punitive damages or attorney fees. The trial court denied appellant's cross-claims and entered judgment for respondent thereon. From that judgment appellant appeals.

Seven of appellant's eight assignments of error relate to evidentiary question. The eighth has not been discussed in brief nor authorities cited in support thereof and we shall not consider it on appeal. Fish v. Fleishman, 87 Idaho 126, 391 P.2d 344 (1964). Three of these assignments challenge the trial court's denial of relief to appellant on his cross-claims. The trial court concluded 'That the * * * cross-claims of the defendant against the plaintiff are not supported with sufficient evidence.' This conclusion is sustained by the record and is affirmed.

Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in finding that respondent was entitled to enter upon appellant's property for the purpose of recovering his crops; that appellant's interference with respondent's right to possession thereof was improper; and that appellant did prevent respondent on five different occasions from recovering his property. These findings are supported by the record.

Appellant's last three assignments of error relate to the amount of damages awarded to respondent. The trial court found that respondent:

'* * * did expend and was required to expend reasonably the sum of $500.00 in his efforts and attempts to recover his personal property, said sum being expended and the reasonable cost of the use of equipment, labor and time on the part of the plaintiff and plaintiff's employees and/or agents. That said...