Raidt v. Crane
| Decision Date | 04 February 1977 |
| Citation | 342 So.2d 358 |
| Parties | Thomas E. RAIDT v. Conway O. CRANE and Mollie B. Crane. SC 1916. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Ronald Storey, Dothan, for appellant.
G. M. Harrison for Merrill & Harrison, Dothan, for appellees.
Plaintiff Raidt appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint for breach of an agistment agreement and awarding defendants Crane damages in the amount of $3,000 on their counterclaim. We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, but reverse the judgment on defendants' counterclaim and remand this cause to the trial court for a new trial on the counterclaim.
In October 1972, Raidt and the Cranes entered into a written agistment contract, whereby the Cranes agreed to receive, for pasture on lands owned by them, cattle to be purchased by Raidt. The Cranes agreed to pasture Raidt's cattle on adequate pasture, to care for, protect, feed, water, and salt Raidt's cattle in a first-class manner and in accordance with the rules of good animal husbandry, and to furnish grazing ample to keep the cattle in first-class condition at all times. They also agreed that Raidt was to have exclusive use of the pasture. The agreement was to continue for five years.
During the Winter of 1974--75, a dispute arose between Raidt and the Cranes. Thereafter, Raidt filed suit against the Cranes, alleging that they had failed to perform their obligations under the contract and that, as a result, his cattle were in extremely poor condition, had decreased greatly in market value, and had suffered calf loss much greater than if they had been properly nourished and cared for. Raidt demanded damages in the amount of $20,000.
In their answer, the Cranes admitted the execution of the agistment agreement, but averred that the written agreement which they signed failed to include a provision by which they and Raidt were to share equally the costs of all supplemental feed and minerals. They alleged that such a provision had appeared in a writing which had been used as a model for their agreement with Raidt and that they and Raidt had agreed that the provision would be included in the written agreement. They further averred that they did not discover the absence of the provision until a dispute arose in the Winter of 1974--75. The Cranes' answer also denied that Raidt had performed all of the conditions which he agreed to perform. They further denied Raidt's allegations that they had failed to perform their part of the agreement and that as a result of their breach his cattle were in extremely poor condition.
The Cranes filed a counterclaim against Raidt, alleging that Raidt by sharing the cost of supplemental feed during 1972 through part of 1974 had ratified the agreement as entered into prior to the execution of the written agreement. They further alleged that since the Winter of 1974--75 Raidt had refused to pay his share for supplemental feed and minerals.
Raidt denied all the averments of the Cranes' counterclaim.
After hearing the evidence ore tenus, the trial court dismissed Raidt's complaint and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eubanks v. Hale
...erroneous and against the great weight of the evidence....'" Ex parte Monroe, 727 So.2d 104, 106 (Ala.1999) (quoting Raidt v. Crane, 342 So.2d 358, 360 (Ala.1977)). Otherwise stated, the trial court's findings of fact are not to be "`disturbed on appeal unless they are palpably wrong, manif......
-
Eubanks v Hale
...erroneous and against the great weight of the evidence ....'"Ex parte Monroe, 727 So. 2d 104, 106 (Ala. 1999) (quoting Raidt v. Crane, 342 So. 2d 358, 360 (Ala. 1977)). Otherwise stated, the trial court's findings of fact are not to be "'disturbed on appeal unless they are palpably wrong, m......
-
Ala. State Univ. v. Danley
...supported by credible evidence." ’" Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 795 (Ala.2000) (quoting Raidt v. Crane, 342 So.2d 358, 360 (Ala.1977) )."Kennedy v. Boles Invs., Inc., 53 So.3d 60, 68 (Ala.2010)." ‘However, the ore tenus standard of review has no application......
- Scrushy v. Tucker
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...Id. at 67-68 (quoting Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So. 2d 791, 795 (Ala. 2000), quoting in turn Raidt v. Crane, 342 So. 2d 358, 360 (Ala. 1977)). The presumption of correctness has no application when the trial court is shown to have improperly applied the law to the f......
-
Your Appellate Brief: an Obstacle Course for the Court or a Clear Pathway to Your Conclusion
...the Nation's Top Advocates 279 (Oxford University Press 2011)).17. Scalia and Garner, supra note 3, at 11-12.18. E.g., Raidt v. Crane, 342 So. 2d 358, 360 (Ala. 1977) ("[W]here the evidence has been [presented] ore tenus, a presumption of correctness attends the trial court's conclusion on ......