Kinsley v. Willis

• Decision Date: 07 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 962,962
• Citation: 120 Vt. 103,132 A.2d 163
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Richard KINSLEY and Shirley Kinsley v. Lawrence WILLIS.

Page 163

132 A.2d 163

120 Vt. 103

Richard KINSLEY and Shirley Kinsley v. Lawrence WILLIS.

No. 962.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 7, 1957.

Raymond L. Miles, Newport, for plaintiffs.

Lee E. Emerson, Barton, for defendant.

Before JEFFORDS, C. J., and CLEARY, ADAMS, HULBURD and HOLDEN, JJ.

HOLDEN, Justice.

This action was instituted in general assumpsit by the plaintiffs, husband and wife. The trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $718.

A conspectus of the evidence, lending the greatest support to the result obtained in the trial court, indicates that the defendant, Willis, in 1955 acquired the right to cut, remove and sell the timber standing on the Libby Lot, so-called, in the Town of Montgomery. The defendant thereafter arranged with the plaintiffs to sell them certain logs from this lot. By this arrangement the defendant was to cut and deliver the logs at the roadside, there to be loaded on the plaintiffs' trucks at the agreed price of $40 per thousand feet of spruce, $46 a thousand of pine, and hemlock at $30 a thousand feet. The logs sold were for ultimate delivery by the plaintiffs to Channell & Son, lumber dealers in Canada. The computation of the quantity of logs thus sold was to be made by the Vermont rule according to the mill scale taken at Channell & Son's plant in Canada. The scale to be made by Channell & Son was to control the amount of the defendant's compensation, but pending the result of the computation at the mill, the plaintiffs advanced payments on the logs delivered to them in reliance on tallies prepared by the defendant at the time of cutting. It does not appear that the plaintiffs made any independent computation to satisfy themselves as to the quantity of logs they received from the defendant at the roadside skidways. However, on the defendant's scale taken at the time of chopping, the plaintiffs advanced $2,070.72 by way of six checks during the period November 5 to November 26, 1955. Thereafter, Channell & Son scaled the logs delivered to them by the plaintiffs referable to the same period, and on the basis of their mill scale paid the plaintiffs only $1312, excluding trucking charges. The plaintiffs claimed the difference in these amounts of $758.72 constituted overpayments by them, in that they paid on the defendant's choppers scales for more logs than they received from the defendant, as shown by Channell's mill scale. They supported this claim by introducing into evidence without objection the six checks paid to the defendant (Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1-6) and the six memoranda (Plaintiffs' Exhibits 7-7E), which purported to show Channell & Son's computation of the logs received at their mill.

The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' recovery on their claim of overpayment by evidence offered to establish that the logging operation on the Libby Lot involved but a single contract of purchase and sale between Channell & Son, buyer, and the defendant, the seller. The evidence established without contradiction that prior to the purchases paid by the plaintiffs' checks, the plaintiff, Richard Kinsley, had been a buyer for Channell & Son. It also was undisputed that of the first 9,000 feet of logs cut on the Libby Lot and delivered to the skidway by the defendant, Channell & Son scaled 5,080 feet at the roadside and paid the defendant for the amount of logs scaled. This initial purchase by Channell & Son was followed by the six payments by way of the plaintiffs' checks, Plaintiffs' Exhibits 1-6. Payment for the logs picked up by the plaintiffs at the roadside terminated when the plaintiffs experienced financial difficulties about November 26. Thereafter the defendant was paid by Channell & Son for the remainder of the logs cut on the Libby Lot. The plaintiff, Richard Kinsley, continued to load logs brought to the roadside by the defendant and delivered these logs to Channell & Son. Payments received by the defendant subsequent to November 26 were made entirely by Channell & Son. It was the defendant's contention that although he received payments from both Channell & Son and the plaintiffs, Kinsley was acting as agent for Channell & Son throughout the operation. He further contended that he cut some 75,000 feet of soft wood from the job for which he was paid substantially in full by either the plaintiffs or Channell, but that he was not overpaid from the operation considered in its entirety.

The defendant appeals from the verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, entered by the trial court.

The first exception relied upon by the defendant relates to the ruling of the trial court in the direct examination of the plaintiff, Richard Kinsley. Counsel called the attention of the witness to the six checks given by Mrs. Kinsley to the defendant and to the six memoranda of Channell's mill scale contained in the exhibits 7-7E. The witness was then requested to state whether he had overpaid the defendant. The objection of the defendant that followed pointed out that this question was for the jury. In support of the offered evidence, plaintiffs' counsel stated to the court that all he was asking in the case was the difference between the amounts represented by the checks and the amounts indicated in the tallies, plaintiffs' exhibits 7-7E. The court then received the answer of the witness that he had overpaid the defendant about $749.

The brief presented by the defendant abandons the only ground stated by his exception, taken at the trial. On this appeal he seeks to establish error on the contention that the evidence admitted was hearsay and a self-serving declaration. On review, errors in the reception of evidence can be predicated only on the fault specified at the time the exception was taken. Parker v. Hoefer, 118 Vt. 1, 14, 100 A.2d 434, 38 A.L.R.2d 1216; State v. Teitle, 117 Vt. 190, 200, 90 A.2d 562. In any event, the conclusion of the answer was without harm for the same result appeared from the exhibits referred to in the question. These papers were received in evidence without limitation or objection. See McCarthy's Adm'r v. Village of Northfield, 89 Vt. 99, 104, 94 A. 298; Gregoire v. Willett, 110 Vt. 459, 461, 8 A.2d 660. This exception is overruled.

Exceptions taken by the defendant on his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case were waived by thereafter continuing with the trial. Hobbs & Son v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 93 Vt. 392, 397, 108 A. 199; Johnson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., 108 Vt. 269, 274, 187 A. 788.

This motion was renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence on the same grounds. His renewed motion is presented for review. Consideration of action of the trial court, overruling this motion of the defendant, requires us to test the proof from its source of greatest strength in support of the plaintiffs' claim, free from the effect of modifying evidence and the weight of the testimony. Shanks v. Lavallee, 118 Vt. 433, 434, 111 A.2d 808; Campbell v. Howard National Bank, 118 Vt. 182, 183, 103 A.2d 96, and cases there cited.

The evidence, so considered, fixes the plaintiffs as the separate purchasers of those logs for which they made payments directly to the defendant, and related to the checks dated in the period November 6 to November 26, resulting in the receipt by the defendant of $2070.72. Although it is sometimes difficult to determine whether several transactions constitute one or several contracts, Bullard v. Thorpe, 66 Vt. 599, 605, 30 A. 36, 25 L.R.A. 605, these particular deliveries of logs during the period related to the plaintiffs' checks were capable of being the subject of separate contracts, if that was the intention of the parties concerned. Hambleton v. U. Aja Granite Co., 95 Vt. 295, 297, 115 A. 102. Whether the plaintiffs were, in truth, the purchasers, independent of Channell & Son, for the deliveries during that three weeks, was a critical preliminary question for the jury to decide. Their decision that the plaintiffs were separate contracting buyers would isolate them from the Channell purchases and free Kinsley from his prior agency. The rights and liabilities of the parties would stand separate and apart from the Channell transactions in fixing the obligations and the duties of the respective parties. Hambleton v. U. Aja Granite Co., supra, 95 Vt. at page 297, 115 A. at page 103.

The plaintiffs' claim, asserted by the evidence and reaffirmed by their brief submitted on this appeal, is founded on overpayments resulting from independent purchase, advanced to the defendant, and induced by the error of fact contained in the chopper's scale submitted to them by the defendant. It lays the foundation for recovery in general assumpsit. A purchaser who pays his seller for property, under a contract or offer that provides for a price per unit, is entitled to restitution for an overpayment caused by a mistake in the computation of the amount of property actually transferred. Restatement, Restitution, § 21 page 94; Williston on Contracts, Revised Edition, § 1574 at page 4400; Turner Falls Lumber Co. v. Burns, 71 Vt. 354, 358, 45 A. 896.

The recovery sought is not defeated by an absence of a demand, from the plaintiffs, as claimed by the defendant's motion. The mistake relied on by the plaintiffs was produced by the misrepresentation of the scale of the logs made by the...