Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon
| Decision Date | 06 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-73,85-73 |
| Citation | 42 St.Rep. 1670,708 P.2d 573,218 Mont. 380 |
| Parties | INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION a/k/a Eddy's Bakery, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Max E. CANNON d/b/a State Security Armored Car Service, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Tipp, Hoven, Skjelset & Frizzell, Richard R. Buley, Missoula, for defendant and appellant.
Garnaas, Hall, Riley & Pinsoneault, H. L. Garnaas, Missoula, for plaintiff and respondent.
Max E. Cannon, d/b/a State Security Armored Car Service appeals from the judgment of the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Missoula, awarding Interstate Brands Corporation, a/k/a Eddy's Bakery, hereinafter Interstate, contract damages in the sum of $6,385.39. We affirm.
During 1978, Cannon provided armored car service in and around the City of Missoula, Montana. Interstate was one of Cannon's customers. Cannon provided his services to Interstate pursuant to a written agreement which provided a description of the services to be rendered, the compensation to be paid and other matters including the rights, privileges and obligations of the parties. Neither party presented a copy of the written agreement into evidence. Milton L. Hanson, manager at Eddy's Bakery at the time, testified that he looked for the written agreement but could not find it. Cannon, however, did not express any reason for not having presented the agreement.
On October 20, 1978, and October 21, 1978, Interstate delivered 5 bags securely sealed to one of Cannon's drivers to be held and returned to Interstate on October 23, 1978. Neither the bags nor their contents were ever returned to Interstate. The bags disappeared under circumstances unknown to either party.
Interstate alleged the bags contained cash and checks. Hanson testified he did not put the cash and checks into the bags nor did he see anyone else put the cash and checks in the bags. Although Hanson was unable to testify as to the contents of the bags from his own personal knowledge, he was able to determine their contents by having his staff review their records.
Interstate offered in evidence a document called a contract receipt which set forth the terms under which Interstate offered items to Cannon's care and the terms by which Cannon would receive goods and merchandise from Interstate. The contract receipt further provided that "State Security Armored Car Service in no event shall be liable for more than the value hereinbelow stated." The value stated was to be endorsed upon the contract receipt under the "said to contain" column.
The contract receipt showed that on October 20, 1978, and October 21, 1978, Cannon received 5 bags from Interstate and that Cannon's driver receipted for the 5 bags. There was no value stated under the "said to contain" columns endorsed upon the face of the document, nor did the document indicate directly or indirectly the contents, inventory or value of the items within the bags.
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District Court made the following finding of fact:
That the contract receipt sets forth the terms and conditions under which Defendant was to receive items for safe keeping and the liability for those items was agreed to be only to the amount declared or "stated." No value was declared or stated by Plaintiff when the Plaintiff presented the contract receipt to the Defendant's driver for his signature. The Defendant's driver did not point out to the Plaintiff that he was required to fill out the "Said to Contain" portion of the receipt and signed it without that having been properly filled out. That Defendant did not bring this requirement to the attention of his customers nor did he himself realize the importance of this provision until he found out he was not covered by insurance without this portion having been filled out.
Cannon raises only one issue on appeal: whether the District Court's conclusion that Cannon was liable to Interstate for damages for breach of contract is inconsistent with the court's finding that Cannon's liability was limited by the language of the contract receipt.
Cannon contends that since the District Court found that the contract receipt between the parties limited Cannon's liability to the amount stated in the receipt and no amount was stated therein, the court's judgment that Cannon was liable for damages to Interstate was in error. Interstate contends that the District Court impliedly found that since both Interstate and Cannon believed that filling out the "said to contain" column of the contract receipt was not required and not insisted upon, it was therefore waived.
Although the matter was never raised by the District Court or the parties, we find that the relationship between Interstate and Cannon constituted a bailment and that Sec. 70-6-204, MCA, must be considered in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties. Many cases hold that where one person accepts from another a sealed or locked receptacle for safekeeping, carriage or other purposes and the transaction is principally concerned with the contents rather than the receptacle, the transaction should be regarded as a bailment of the contents as well as of the receptacle, the bailment of the latter being regarded as only incidental. 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailment Sec. 75.
Section 70-6-204, MCA, provides: "The liability of a depositary for negligence cannot exceed the amount which he is informed by the depositor or has reason to suppose the thing deposited to be worth." Although there are almost no Montana cases interpreting this code section, there is ample California case law interpreting California Civil Code section 1840 from which Sec. 70-6-204, MCA, was taken verbatim.
California has interpreted its statute to mean that the amount of damages recoverable for the loss of goods through the negligence of a bailee is limited to the value thereof as disclosed by the owner unless the bailee had reason to suppose that it was of greater or lesser value than it was in fact. Hoffman v. Eastman Kodak Co. (Cal.1929), 99 Cal.App. 436, 278 P. 891; England v. Lyon Fireproof Storage Co. (Cal.1928), 94 Cal.App. 562, 271 P. 532, 537....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baty
...P.2d 1083, 1086 (1991) ); Brunette v. State , 2016 MT 128, ¶ 36, 383 Mont. 458, 372 P.3d 476 (quoting Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon , 218 Mont. 380, 384, 708 P.2d 573, 576 (1985) ). This Court will consult both hearing transcripts and written findings to make an implied finding determin......
-
In re Marriage of Swanson
...the evidence, thus its finding that the cattle could be traced to his premarital monies was not in error. See Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon (1985), 218 Mont. 380, 708 P.2d 573. ¶ 32 We conclude that the District Court did, in fact, consider Rennee's contributions to the maintenance of t......
-
In re D.L.B.
...otherwise essential findings if the implied findings would be "inconsistent with express findings made." Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon , 218 Mont. 380, 385, 708 P.2d 573, 576 (1985). Further, the implied findings doctrine may apply to satisfy express statutory requirements for involunta......
-
In re S.M.
...by the evidence.’ ” In re Mental Health of S.C., 2000 MT 370, ¶ 15, 303 Mont. 444, 15 P.3d 861 (quoting Interstate Brands Corp. v. Cannon, 218 Mont. 380, 384, 708 P.2d 573, 576 (1985) ). ¶ 29 The written order of commitment must at the least be adequate to “apprise[ ] the receiving staff at......