Sandstrom v. Smith

• Decision Date: 20 June 1906
• Citation: 12 Idaho 446,86 P. 416
• Parties: CARL E. SANDSTROM, Appellant, v. FRANK SMITH et al., Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

86 P. 416

12 Idaho 446

CARL E. SANDSTROM, Appellant, v. FRANK SMITH et al., Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

June 20, 1906

FORECLOSURE OF CONTRACTOR'S LIEN-SUIT IN EQUITY-ACTION AT LAW-CROSS-ACTION FOR DAMAGES-SPECIAL FINDINGS BY JURY-GENERAL VERDICT-FINDINGS ON ALL MATERIAL ISSUES.

1. An action was brought to recover a balance due on a contract for the construction of a dwelling-house. The defendants answered, putting in issue the material allegations of the complaint, and filed a cross-complaint wherein they demanded damages for the failure of the plaintiff to complete his contract. Certain questions in the foreclosure suit were submitted to the jury, which they answered, and also brought in a general verdict for the plaintiff. The court thereupon set aside the general verdict and entered judgment without making any further findings than those made by the jury. Held, that the jury did not find upon all of the material issues made by the pleadings, and for that reason the judgment must be reversed, as all of the material issues made by the suit to foreclose and the cross-action for damages were not found upon.

2. This being a suit in equity and a cross-action at law, either party had the right to have the questions in the law action determined by the jury, and the court of its own volition might submit certain questions involved in the suit in equity to the jury.

3. In such a case the court may adopt the findings of the jury as its findings; but if the jury fails to find upon any of the material issues made by the pleadings, the court should find upon those issues before entering judgment.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Bingham County. Hon. James M. Stevens, Judge.

Action to foreclose a contractor's lien and cross-action by defendants to recover damages. Judgment for defendants. Reversed.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs awarded to appellant.

Chas A. Merriman, for Appellant.

The special verdict of the jury must pass upon all the material issues so as to enable the court to pass upon the pleadings and verdict, which party is entitled to recover in this case (Hodges v. Easton, 106 U.S. 413, 27 L.Ed. 169, 1 S.Ct. 307; Ward v. Cochran, 150 U.S. 597, 37 L.Ed 1195, 14 S.Ct. 230; Montgomery v. Sayer (Cal.), 25 P. 552; Clementson on Special Verdicts, 204-216, 264, and notes.) If this case had been tried by the court or a jury and a "special Verdict" rendered, then it would be necessary that the findings must respond to and dispose of all of the material issues in this case. (Rev. Stats. 1887, 4396; Gould v. Stafford, 77 Cal. 66, 18 P. 879; Carson v. Thews, 2 Idaho 176, 9 P. 605; Wilson v. Wilson, 6 Idaho 597, 57 P. 708.)

To justify the court in rendering a verdict on the findings notwithstanding the general verdict, the former must be such as to absolutely determine the controversy in favor of the moving party; the antagonism must be absolute and incapable of being removed by any conceivable evidence legitimately admissible under the issues, to warrant the court in setting aside the general verdict and rendering judgment on the special findings; the true test being whether they would warrant a different judgment from the one entered under all the circumstances in the case. (Indianan Ry. Co. v. Maurer, 160 Ind. 25, 66 N.E. 157; Stoy v. Louisville E. & St. Con. R. Co., 160 Ind. 144, 66 N.E. 615; Wright v. Chicago I. & L. Ry. Co., 160 Ind. 583, 66 N.E. 455; City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418, 83 Am. St. Rep. 200, 60 N.E. 271, 54 L. R. A. 396; Chicago I. L. & Ry. Co. v. Leachman, 161 Ind. 512, 69 N.E. 253; Smith v. Michigan Cent. Ry. Co., 35 Ind.App. 188, 73 N.E. 928; City of Mishawaka v. Kirby, 32 Ind.App. 233, 69 N.E. 481; Drake v. Justice Gold Min. Co., 32 Colo. 259, 75 P. 913; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Dunlevy, 129 Ill. 132, 22 N.E. 15; Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho 271, 48 P. 295; Anderson v. Pierce, 62 Kan. 756, 64 P. 633; Clementson on Special Verdicts, 134-148.)

Holden, Holden, Holden & Holden, for Respondents.

The controlling, decisive issue was as to whether the building had been, at the time this suit was instituted, constructed in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner. Every other question was immaterial and embraced within said issue. A Question fully embracing and fairly submitting such issue to the jury is sufficient.

As a matter of law no legal right to recover could accrue to appellant until he had constructed the building in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner. The special verdict is inconsistent with the general verdict, and where a special verdict or finding is inconsistent with the general verdict, the former controls the latter, and the court must give judgment accordingly. (Rev. Stats. 1887, sec. 4397; Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.)

SULLIVAN, J. Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J.

This suit was brought to foreclose a contractor's lien for the balance due for the erection and construction of a dwelling-house. The defendant, by way of answer, denied many of the allegations of the complaint, and by way of cross-complaint set up an action for damages on account of the faulty construction of the dwelling-house referred to and asked for a judgment for $ 1,300 against the plaintiff. The material allegations of the cross-complaint were answered by the plaintiff and denied. The cause went to trial before the court and a jury. Three special questions were submitted to the jury by the court which they answered, and they also rendered a general verdict and assessed plaintiff's damage at the...