Schaffer v. Standard Timber Co., 2828

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Citation331 P.2d 611,79 Wyo. 137
Docket NumberNo. 2828,2828
PartiesS. A. SCHAFFER, Donald L. Schaffer and Neil Lundee, Appellants (Defendants below), v. STANDARD TIMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
Decision Date18 November 1958

Page 611

331 P.2d 611
79 Wyo. 137
S. A. SCHAFFER, Donald L. Schaffer and Neil Lundee, Appellants (Defendants below),
STANDARD TIMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 2828.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Nov. 18, 1958.

Page 612

[79 Wyo. 140] Charles Stuart Brown, Afton, for appellants.

Frank R. Schofield, Green River, Edgar J. Herschler, Kemmerer, for appellee.


[79 Wyo. 143] Mr. Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff, Standard Timber Company, brought action to recover a balance due from defendants, S. A. Schaffer, Donald L. Schaffer, and Neil Lundee, upon a written agreement and supplements purporting to sell to defendants all of the plaintiff company's stock for the purchase price of $65,000. Defendants denied generally the allegations of the petition and alleged affirmatively that:

(a) Plaintiff's president, F. Pace Woods, as a condition of the agreement and an inducement to the defendants had represented

Page 613

that the 'corporation owned United States Forest Service Cutting permits' in the amount of 15 million board feet when defendants later learned that 'there were only approximately five million board feet of such timber'; and

[79 Wyo. 144] (b) Woods had guaranteed defendants would continue to hold a tie-sale contract with Union Pacific whereas plaintiff through Woods and White, its principal stockholders, had caused the loss of said timber contract with resulting damage.

Defendants pleaded failure of consideration and impossibility of performance but asserted payment of $32,038.18 prior to their discovery of the facts as to the quantity of timber and alleged no amounts due.

The court upon trial entered judgment for plaintiff and against defendants in the amount sought, $35,357.86 plus interest. Defendants have now appealed, listing as specifications of error the court's incorrect rulings upon matters of evidence, the illegality of the judgment as being contrary to law and to the evidence, and the impropriety of the judgment as being entered without regard to the defenses of misrepresentation, mistake, failure of consideration, and impossibility of performance.

In the specifications of error there is complaint of various rulings of the trial court in permitting or prohibiting the asking of various questions, but an examination of the record discloses no impropriety in that respect. Moreover, defendants do not substantiate their complaints either by argument or brief and therefore may be taken to have waived them. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Lampman, 18 Wyo. 106, 104 P. 533, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 217, Ann.Cas.1912C, 788; Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121, 253 P. 669; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509, 263 P. 711; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476, 273 P. 543; Peterson v. Le Faivre, 44 Wyo. 378, 12 P.2d 385. See 3 Am.Jur. Appeal and Error §§ 770, 776; 8 Bancroft's Code Practice and Remedies, 1928, p. 9389.

[79 Wyo. 145] Defendants in their brief urge mutual mistake growing out of misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement, and plaintiff responds by arguing these questions. Accordingly, fraud now being made an integral part of defendants' philosophy, it is essential to consider it in conjunction with other factors. This defense must stand or fall depending upon the representations which plaintiff made regarding the number of board feet covered by plaintiff's permits with the U. S. Government. To recite all of the testimony on this subject would unduly burden this opinion, and it is sufficient to list certain statements of the witnesses which we deem to be illustrative of the testimony in general.

S. A. Schaffer (the moving figure on the part of defendants):

'Q. Would you indicate to the Court exactly what Mr. Woods said at this time? A. Well, he described that there was 15 million foot of timber under contract and a tie purchase order that could be had every year, as they had in the past for 14 years.'

Mrs. S. A. Schaffer:

'Q. And at this time, what was said with respect to the quantity (sic) of timber available? A. Mr. Woods said to my husband, 'there's 15 million board feet of timber in the area' and he said, 'isn't that so Morris?' and Mr. Warpness said at the time, 'Well, it's more like 17 million and Mr. Woods explained that would be a little overrun on the estimation of the forest estimation, could overrun to 17 million.'

* * *

* * *

'Q. Was there ever any conversation with respect to a single area as to the quantity (sic) of timber available? A. Yes, as we came down the road Mr. Woods was talking to Mr. Schaffer about the timber, as we came down the road and as we came along in this area [79 Wyo. 146] of this gulch, called Both Creek Gulch, he said, 'Now, right up there, see, is 15 million feet that has never been touched'.'

Hugh D. Schooley (real estate broker):

Page 614

'Q. What was the approximate date of this meeting? A. Approximately the fore part of July, 1953.

'Q. Would you indicate to the Court, Mr. Schooley, what was said by Mr. Woods, with reference to the quanity (sic) of timber? A. There was a lot of conversation before and after, but the particular remark to which, I think you refer, is that Mr. Woods said that he thought there were about 15 million feet in the area.

'Q. Did you hear anyone else express an opinion or make a statement as to the amount of timber there? A. Yes.

'Q. And who made this statement? A. Morris Warpness.

'Q. And what did he say? A. He said, 'I think that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Roberts Const. Co. v. Vondriska, 4461
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 Marzo 1976 argument or brief may be considered as waived, Booth v. Hackney, Wyo., 516 P.2d 180, 185 (1973), and Schaffer v. Standard Timber Co., 79 Wyo. 137, 144, 331 P.2d 611, 613 (1958), we consider that Roberts has waived any claim it might have asserted that the trial court erred in sustaining ......
  • Schepps v. Howe, 5826
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 22 Junio 1983
    ...could not serve as an inducement to the buyers in entering into the contract. As this court said in Schaffer v. Standard Timber Company, 79 Wyo. 137, 331 P.2d 611, 615 " * * * A party preparing to consummate a contract cannot be heard to complain if he fails to make reasonably diligent inqu......
  • Triton Coal Co. v. Husman, Inc., s. 92-55
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 3 Febrero 1993
    ...applied this long-standing rule in prior cases. Dworkin v. L.F.P., Inc., 839 P.2d 903 (Wyo.1992); Schaffer v. Standard Timber Company, 79 Wyo. 137, 331 P.2d 611 (1958). In the present case, the district court entered a summary judgment finally disposing of Count II of Husman's complaint. Wh......
  • Fallon v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 3610
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 29 Mayo 1968
    ...prove the charges of the use of 'false or fraudulent statements' by clear and convincing evidence. Schaffter v. Standard Timber Company, 79 Wyo. 137, 331 P.2d 611, 315. 'Moreover, fraud will not be imputed to any party when the facts and circumstances out of which it is supposed to arise ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT