Swift v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 24 June 1913
• Citation: 158 S.W. 96
• Parties: SWIFT v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

158 S.W. 96

SWIFT v. JOHNSON.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 24, 1913.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1913.

1. CONTRACTS (§ 346)—ACTIONS—VARIANCE— RECOVERY ON QUANTUM MERUIT.

In an action for services in baling hay for defendant where, although plaintiff claimed that it was agreed that he should bale 5 tons of hay as compensation for the use of defendant's baling machine in baling his own hay, and that he should be paid $2 a ton for all hay baled by him in excess of 5 tons, the evidence tended strongly to show that there was no meeting of the minds as to the amount of hay he should bale as compensation for the use of the machine, the court erred in limiting him to a recovery on the express agreement as claimed by him, and in refusing to charge that if there was no agreement and understanding as to what he was to be paid for his services, he was entitled to the excess of the reasonable value of such services over the reasonable value of the use of the baling machine in baling his own hay.

2. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (§ 124)—NEW TRIAL ON APPEAL—JUDGMENT—CONFORMITY TO PLEADINGS.

In an action originating before a justice of the peace, where the statement was merely one of an account, the pleadings authorized a recovery in quantum meruit as well as on a special contract, if the evidence established such contract.

3. WORK AND LABOR (§ 29)—ACTIONS ON QUANTUM MERUIT—LIMITATION OF RECOVERY BY SPECIAL CONTRACT.

In an action on quantum meruit, where the evidence establishes a special contract, the measure of recovery is limited to and must not exceed the amount specified in the contract.

4. WORK AND LABOR (§ 11)—CONTRACT NOT FIXING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.

Where services are rendered and accepted under a contract therefor, but there is no meeting of the minds as to the compensation for such services, the law implies a contract in accord with the precepts of natural justice to compensate the reasonable value.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; James D. Barnett, Judge.

Action by H. C. Swift against Wallace Johnson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

A. C. Whitson, of Mexico, for appellant. Clarence A. Barnes, of Mexico, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit on an account for the value of services rendered and wire used in baling hay for defendant. The finding and judgment were for defendant, and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal.

The suit originated before a justice of the peace, and involves $13 only. Plaintiff and defendant are farmers residing in the same neighborhood. Defendant owned a hay baling machine, and plaintiff rented it for the purpose of baling some hay for himself. It appears plaintiff met defendant in the public road and proposed renting the baling machine for the purpose mentioned. The evidence concerning the conversation in connection with this proposal is not uniform. Both parties say that plaintiff desired the use of the machine to bale about 19 tons of hay, but beyond this witnesses do not agree as to what the arrangement was. According to plaintiff's evidence it was agreed that he should use defendant's hay baler, and as compensation therefor furnish the labor and bale 5 tons of hay for defendant which defendant owned and was standing in the stack. It was further agreed that if there were more than 5 tons of hay in the stack, defendant would pay plaintiff $2 per ton for baling it. Plaintiff proceeded and baled the hay owned by him, and then went about baling that owned by defendant to pay for the use of the machine. In all plaintiff says he baled 13½ tons of hay for defendant, which at $2 a ton amounted to $27. In performing this work he employed wire of the value of $1.20, and all the evidence is defendant agreed to pay for the wire used in baling his hay. The two items of baling 13 tons of hay at $2 per ton and $1.20 for wire total the amount of $28.20. This amount is credited $10, which represents the 5 tons of hay at $2 per ton which plaintiff agreed to bale for defendant in payment of the use of his machine in baling the hay owned by plaintiff. After the work was done, it appears defendant paid plaintiff $5.20 on the account, and this amount is credited thereon, leaving a balance due, according to plaintiff's theory of the case, of $13. On the part of defendant the evidence tends to prove that plaintiff agreed to bale, not 5, but rather 10, tons of hay for him for the use of the machine in baling about 19 tons owned by plaintiff. It thus appears that there is a discrepancy in the evidence to the extent of baling 5 tons of hay. Moreover the evidence for defendant tends to prove that the hay baled by plaintiff for defendant did not weigh out as heavy as plaintiff seems to claim, and therefore this shortage in weight must be deducted from the amount of plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, on the account, as before said, defendant paid $5.20 to compensate $1.20 for wire used, and the baling of 1½ tons of hay by plaintiff for defendant over and above the 10 tons which it is said plaintiff agreed to bale for the use of the machine. There is evidence, too, tending to prove the reasonable value of the labor performed in baling hay, when the owner of the hay furnishes the machine, as here, is $2 per ton. Furthermore, that the reasonable rental of a hay baling machine, when let out to another who furnishes the labor and bales his own hay, is 50 cents per ton.

Though the court admitted evidence tending to prove the reasonable value as above stated, it refused to submit plaintiff's right of recovery as in quantum meruit. By the instructions given, the court required the jury to find for defendant unless it found the contract to be as plaintiff stated it in his evidence. This it is urged was error, in view of the fact that the court refused plaintiff's instruction authorizing a recovery as in quantum meruit, in event the jury found there was no agreement between the parties. It may be that if nothing more appeared than that plainti...