Smith v. White
| Decision Date | 10 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 8685,8685 |
| Citation | 411 So.2d 731 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | Doyle SMITH, Husband of & Mrs. Doyle Smith, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant, v. Willie WHITE, Defendant-Appellant-Appellee. |
Ford & Nugent, William M. Ford and Howard N. Nugent, Jr., Alexandria, and Paul H. Kidd, Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee-appellant.
J. P. Mauffray, Jr., Jena, for defendant-appellant-appellee.
Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and STOKER, JJ.
In this suit, which was before us previously, 1 plaintiff, Doyle Smith, sought to recover the sum of $6,234.00 from defendant, Willie A. White. White answered denying any indebtedness to plaintiff and filed a reconventional demand seeking cancellation of a gravel lease entered into by the parties as well as damages for the alleged destruction of reconvenor's fruit orchard and the removal by plaintiff of topsoil from property not subject to the gravel lease. On August 7, 1980, the district court rendered judgment on the principal demand in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $6,234.00 with legal interest from November 16, 1978, and twenty-five per cent (25%) attorney's fees. In addition, the trial court, in its original decision, rendered judgment in favor of the defendant (plaintiff-in-reconvention) ordering cancellation of the gravel lease, but refused to consider defendant's reconventional demand insofar as it pertained to the alleged destruction of the fruit orchard and the alleged removal of topsoil from White's property.
On appeal to this court, the trial court judgment was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. In so doing, we stated:
(Emphasis ours)
On remand, the trial court considered White's claim for damages as set forth in his reconventional demand and concluded that defendant (plaintiff-in-reconvention) was entitled to an award of $17,500.00. The judgment as rendered by the trial court on June 6, 1981 provides in its entirety as follows:
"Considering the testimony, evidence, law and the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and for written reasons assigned on June 2, 1981,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of DOYLE SMITH and against WILLIE WHITE in the full sum of SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR and No/100 ($6,234.00) DOLLARS, together with seven (7%) per cent per annum interest thereon from November 16, 1978, through September 12, 1980, plus ten (10%) per cent per annum interest thereon from September 13, 1980, until paid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of WILLIE WHITE and against DOYLE SMITH, in the full sum of SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 ($17,500.00) DOLLARS, together with Seven (7%) per cent per annum interest from January 15, 1979, through September 12, 1980, plus ten (10%) per cent per annum interest from September 13, 1980, until paid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that WILLIE WHITE pay all costs of these proceedings."
Plaintiff, Doyle Smith, appeals from that judgment. Defendant, Willie White, has answered the present appeal alleging that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the issue of cancellation of the gravel lease. Additionally, White prays for an increase in the amount of damages awarded him by the trial court.
The substantial issues on appeal are:
(1) Did the trial court err in reiterating the terms of the judgment rendered in favor of Smith in its judgment following remand?
(2) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the issue of lease cancellation on remand?
(3) Did the trial court err in awarding damages to reconvenor, and if not, are the damages as awarded excessive or inadequate?
Plaintiff-appellant first contends that the trial court erred in reiterating the terms of the money judgment rendered in favor of Smith in its judgment following remand. We agree that this was error; however, the error is harmless. As clearly stated in our previous opinion the judgment of the trial court was affirmed insofar as it awarded to plaintiff the sum of $6,234.00. The record reflects that this portion of the original judgment is now final. It was unnecessary for the trial court to reiterate the provisions of that final judgment in its judgment of June 24, 1981.
Appellant and appellee both contend that the trial court erred in failing on remand to rule on the lease cancellation issue raised in the reconventional demand. In support of their contention, both parties cite our prior decision which specifically instructed the trial court to rule on defendant's reconventional demand in its entirety.
Although the reconventional demand was remanded in its entirety for further proceedings, the record does not reflect that either Smith or White offered to introduce any additional evidence on the issue of lease cancellation, the entire matter having been submitted to the trial court on the previous record. The trial court's previous reasons for judgment and its formal judgment rendered pursuant thereto dated August 7, 1980 disposed of that portion of White's reconventional demand concerning the issue of cancellation of the gravel lease. Presumably, since the trial court had previously disposed of that portion of defendant's reconventional demand, the trial judge deemed it unnecessary to again formally order the cancellation of the disputed gravel lease. Although we believe that the better practice would have been to formally dispose of all matters presented by White's reconventional demand in the second judgment rendered on June 24, 1981, we conclude that both judgments by the district court should be considered by this court in resolving the issues presented on appeal. In so doing, we determine that to remand the present matter to the trial court once again simply for the trial judge to reiterate his decision to cancel the disputed gravel lease would not be in the best interest of judicial efficiency, economy, and expediency. The record presently before us contains formal judgment by the trial court on all issues presented by the reconventional demand, albeit in two judgments, and all evidence and testimony received at trial and provides this court with sufficient information to decide the issues presented on appeal.
Plaintiff (defendant-in-reconvention) contends that the evidence presented by reconvenor on this issue is not sufficient on which to base a finding that the gravel lease should be cancelled. 2 On the other hand, reconvenor contends that the evidence presented clearly establishes that Doyle Smith failed to operate the disputed gravel lease in good faith and as a reasonably prudent operator. In this regard, White, in effect, contends that Smith removed and marketed gravel and dirt from White's land for which he was not paid by design and with the intent to deprive him of the royalties which were justly due to him under the lease.
The provisions of the Louisiana Mineral Code apply to gravel leases. See LSA-R.S. 31:4. LSA-R.S. 31:122 which sets forth the obligations of the mineral lessee provides as follows:
The trial court concluded in its original judgment of August 7, 1980 that the evidence received at trial mandated the cancellation of the gravel lease. In so concluding, the trial judge, in his written reasons for judgment, merely stated: "... I am of the opinion that the evidence supports the finding that cancellation is in order and it should be included in the judgment to be signed in this case." We note that the trial judge makes no specific reference to which facts, testimony, and/or evidence influenced his decision. Our review of the record reveals that Smith introduced only one witness who testified regarding his operation of the mineral lease. Smith did not testify. Mary Nell Smith, plaintiff's wife, testified that 3,866 cubic yards of gravel were removed from the leased premises and that White was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Dole
...with some degree of detail and specificity. Smith v. First Nat'l Bank of DeRidder, 478 So.2d 185 (La.App. 3 Cir.1985) ; Smith v. White, 411 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982), writ denied, 413 So.2d 508 (La.1982).....Since the assessment of an award based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment or......
-
Coon v. Placid Oil Co.
...amount must be proven with certainty. Clement v. Louisiana Irrigation & Mill Co., 129 La. 825, 56 So. 902 (1911); Smith v. White, 411 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982), writ denied, 413 So.2d 508 (La.1982). Proof which establishes only possibility, speculation or unsupported probability does......
-
Evangeline Parish School Bd. v. Energy Contracting Services, Inc.
...showing the extent of the damage and plaintiff's own uncorroborated estimate of the value of the loss is insufficient. Smith v. White, 411 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 413 So.2d 508 Damages recoverable in this instance are limited to any amounts overcharged because of the erron......
-
Parker v. Dubus Engine Co.
...the extent of the damage and plaintiff's own uncorroborated personal estimate of the value of the loss is insufficient. Smith v. White, 411 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 413 So.2d 508 (La.1982); Freeman v. G.T.S. Corporation, 363 So.2d 1247 (La.App. 4th We conclude that the abov......