Lieuallen Land & Livestock Corp. v. Heidenrich
| Decision Date | 23 June 1971 |
| Citation | 485 P.2d 1230,259 Or. 333 |
| Parties | LIEUALLEN LAND & LIVESTOCK CORPORATION, Respondent, v. M. L. HEIDENRICH, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Milo W. Pope, Milton-Freewater, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Galbreath & Pope, Milton-Freewater.
Donald R. Duncan, Athena, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, P.J., and DENECKE, HOLMAN, TONGUE, HOWELL and BRYSON, JJ.
This litigation arose over a dispute between plaintiff and defendant concerning a crop lease for the growing and harvesting of corn on defendant's land. The trial court entered a decree awarding plaintiff a judgment against defendant for $1348.29, and defendant appeals.
At the outset it is necessary to determine whether the matter involved is one at law or in equity. If the cause is a law action, then the rule is well-established that this court is bound by the trial court's decision if there is substantial evidence to support it. On the other hand, the law is equally clear that equity cases are considered de novo in this court.
The caption of the complaint states that the complaint was filed in equity. The prayer is the usual prayer found in all equity complaints. The case was tried before the court without a jury and was concluded by the entry of a decree in favor of plaintiff.
However, it is not the title given to the complaint that determines whether the matter is one at law or in equity. The usual basis for distinction is in the nature of the relief sought. Carey v. Hays, 243 Or. 73, 77, 409 P.2d 899 (1966).
Plaintiff alleged in its complaint that it agreed to lease the defendant's land to plant and harvest a crop and to deliver one-fourth of the crop to defendant as rental; that plaintiff planted the crop, but before maturity the defendant cut and removed the entire crop 'and converted same'; that plaintiff made demand on defendant for plaintiff's three-fourths share of the crop but defendant refused to deliver it 'or to account for same.'
The plaintiff's prayer seeks recovery from defendant of plaintiff's share of the crop at the rate of $9.50 per ton plus interest.
It is immaterial to our decision whether plaintiff's right to recover is based on breach of the lease agreement or for conversion; the complaint states a cause of action at law for unliquidated damages. 'Equity has no jurisdiction to pass upon a purely legal demand for unliquidated damages.' Nelson v. Smith, 157 Or. 292, 300, 69 P.2d 1072, 1075 (1937). The fact that the complaint mentions an accounting does not convert the cause into an equity suit. Carey v. Hays, Supra, 243 Or. at 79, 409 P.2d 899. No accounting is necessary to determine the simple question of whether defendant breached the lease, and, if so, the amount of damages due plaintiff.
The sole remaining question is whether there is any substantial evidence to support the award of damages to plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Community Bank v. Jones
...review, we must, as a preliminary matter, determine whether this lawsuit is one at law or in equity. See, e. g., Lieuallen v. Heidenrich, 259 Or. 333, 485 P.2d 1230 (1971); Trans. Equip. Rentals v. Ore. Auto. Ins., 257 Or. 288, 292-93, 478 P.2d 620 (1970); ORS 19.125; Oregon Constitution Ar......
-
Prehall v. Weigel
...e.g., Thompson, 329 Or. at 638, 997 P.2d 191 (citing Nelson and Smith, 157 Or. 292, 300, 69 P.2d 1072 (1937)); Lieuallen v. Heidenrich, 259 Or. 333, 335, 485 P.2d 1230 (1971). Here, plaintiff sought an accounting to determine the exact amount of his damages, which he alleged were based on t......
-
Burt, Vetterlein & Bushnell, P.C. v. Stein
...to recover on the guaranty is at law, and we review for substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings. Lieuallen v. Heidenrich, 259 Or. 333, 485 P.2d 1230 (1971). However, factual findings relied on to support an affirmative defense are reviewed according to the character of th......
-
State v. Norris
...true, however, that the label given to a claim does not determine whether the matter is at law or in equity. Lieuallen v. Heidenrich, 259 Or. 333, 334-35, 485 P.2d 1230 (1971). The critical inquiry in deciding if a matter is one at law or in equity is the relief sought. As explained by the ......