Thomas v. Cate, 8371
| Decision Date | 04 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 8371,8371 |
| Citation | 296 P.2d 1033,78 Idaho 29 |
| Parties | Elwood C. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. L. CATE, Jr., Albert E. Minton and J. Frank Julian, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Anderson & Anderson, Pocatello, for appellant.
O. R. Baum, Ruby Y. Brown and L. Charles Johnson, Pocatello, for respondents.
The amended complaint alleged that the defendants were operating under the fictitious name and style of Bannock Steel and Tank Co. in the city of Pocatello, Idaho, at all times mentioned in the amended complaint. It is further alleged that on April 1, 1954, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a written contract entitled 'Lease Agreement' whereby plaintiff leased a certain Ford truck tractor with a semi-trailer to Bannock Steel and Tank Co., a copartnership, for 30 months with an option to renew the lease for an additional 30 months at a rental of 28 cents per mile of operation of the aforesaid equipment, plus a loading and unloading charge of $5 for each loading or unloading stop, the lessor to furnish a competent and licensed operator at his own expense, and all gasoline, oil and other operating supplies needed, and to keep the property in repair.
It is alleged that on and after May 25, 1954, defendants violated the contract in that they have not used the equipment nor the services of plaintiff, nor have they paid plaintiff any money for the use of said equipment or for services after said date; that if they had lived up to the provisions of it, the plaintiff would have been able to clear a profit of $600 per month over and above all expenses, and over and above his wages as a truck driver (he driving the truck himself) in the sum of $400 per month; that he was damaged by reason of the breach of said contract by defendants in the sum of $27,000.
To this amended complaint, defendants filed a general demurrer, also a special demurrer based on the grounds of uncertainty, ambiguity, unintelligibility, and on the further ground that appellant's complaint showed a misjoinder of two causes of action, one seeking to recover for loss of the use of the truck and trailer, and the other seeking to recover a reasonable wage for plaintiff as driver, which respondent contends is not provided for in said contract, in that it provides only for the rental of the truck.
The trial court, after hearing the matter and considering the briefs submitted, ordered both the general and special demurrers sustained without leave to amend, as the court considered the defects in the amended complaint incapable of correction. The court then dismissed the action.
The determinative question in this case is whether or not the complaint states a cause of action, or could be made to do so if amendment were permitted.
The lease agreement does not provide that the equipment or the services of the driver will be used at any time, or at all. There is no minimum or maximum limit as to the amount of use for any period. There is no obligation on the part of the defendants to use either the equipment or the services of the driver a single mile or a single stop. The lease agreement imposes no terms or duty upon defendants to use the equipment or services of the plaintiff or to pay him anything until such equipment or services are used.
The plaintiff does not allege nor contend that there was such use without payment. Plaintiff bases his complaint on an alleged breach of an express contract, but the contract does not set out an obligation assumed by the defendants, as above pointed out. Among the requisites of a complaint for breach of contract are allegations of the making of the contract, an obligation assumed by defendants, and their breach or failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority
... ... See 597 P.2d 1386 ... Page 1103 ... Thomas S. Smith, Smith, Stanfield & Scott, Laramie, signed the brief and appeared in oral argument on ... ...
-
Reynolds v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
...making of the contract, an obligation assumed by defendants, and their breach or failure to meet such obligation." Thomas v. Cate, 78 Idaho 29, 31, 296 P.2d 1033, 1035 (1956). If a tort cause of action in negligence is asserted, the burden is upon the claimant to show, "(1) a duty, recogniz......
-
McCandless v. Schick
...has been recognized repeatedly by this court. Wormward v. Taylor, 70 Idaho 450, 221 P.2d 686, and cases therein cited; Thomas v. Cate, 78 Idaho 29, 296 P.2d 1033. Mutuality of obligation as pertains to an executory contract requires that each party to the agreement be bound to perform; if i......
-
Bob Daniels and Sons v. Weaver
...is too indefinite to be enforced. See generally, e.g., Dale's Service Co. v. Jones, 96 Idaho 662, 534 P.2d 1102 (1975); Thomas v. Cate, 78 Idaho 29, 296 P.2d 1033 (1956). Moreover, easements are interests in real property. Idaho Code § 9-505(5) (the "statute of frauds") provides, with excep......