Zillah Feed Yards, Inc. v. Carlisle, 38768

• Decision Date: 19 October 1967
• Docket Number: No. 38768,38768
• Citation: 72 Wn.2d 240,432 P.2d 650
• Parties: ZILLAH FEED YARDS, INC., a corporation, Respondent, v. S. P. CARLISLE and Peggy Carlisle, husband and wife, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 240

72 Wn.2d 240

432 P.2d 650

ZILLAH FEED YARDS, INC., a corporation, Respondent, v. S. P. CARLISLE and Peggy Carlisle, husband and wife, Appellants.

No. 38768.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

Oct. 19, 1967.

Tonkoff, Holst, & Hanson, J. P. Tonkoff, Yakima, for appellants.

Halverson, Applegate, McDonald & Weeks, C. W. Halverson, Yakima, for respondent.

HAMILTON, Judge.

Respondent, a corporation, is engaged in buying and fattening beef cattle for market. To accomplish this purpose it owns and operates feed yards in Zillah, Washington. Mr. C. A. Courtright, as president of the corporation, manages the business. Manure is a natural by-product of the operation and is adaptable to farm fertilization.

Appellant S. P. Carlisle is an experienced farmer, and at the time here concerned farmed upwards of 900 acres of land in the Yakima Valley located near Zillah. He raised beets, mint, and various other crops, including some wheat and barley.

On February 12, 1961, Messers. Carlisle and Courtright orally agreed that respondent corporation would deliver and spread 1,000 tons of manure fertilizer upon a portion of appellants' property in exchange for 200 tons of wheat straw stacked on appellants' premises. The agreed valuations, for exchange purposes, were § a ton for the manure and $15 a ton for the straw, f.o.b. appellants' ranch. To carry out the fertilizing aspects of the agreement, Mr. Courtright contracted the services of Ervin and Allen Yoerger, who regularly engaged in the business of loading, hauling, and spreading manure with Ervin acting as manager and Allen as job foreman. Deliveries commenced on February 14, 1961, with the Yoergers utilizing up to eight trucks capable of hauling an over-all average of 11 tons of manure per load, and with Mr. Carlisle generally indicating the areas of the acreage he wished fertilized, which, according to Mr. Carlisle, did not exceed 110 acres.

At about the time the 1,000 tons Of manure had been delivered and spread, Messrs. Carlisle and Courtright casually met in Zillah's Squeeze Inn, a restaurant. A second oral arrangement was then reached, whereby it was agreed that additional manure from two of the respondent's feeding pens would be delivered and spread in exchange for additional straw or fodder to be supplied from the Carlisle ranch. It was understood that no money was to change hands--only the respective products at their agreed or market values. Manure deliveries thereafter continued until--according to respondent's calculations--a net of 9,378 tons had been delivered and spread. When adequate straw and/or suitable foder was not forthcoming from Mr. Carlisle during 1961, 1962, and 1963 to meet the value of the manure, computed at $3 per ton, respondent corporation commenced suit seeking judgment in the sum of $23,840 as the balance due after credits for the straw and fodder supplied by appellants.

Trial was had to the court sitting without a jury. The principal questions in dispute revolved about the amount of manure delivered and the quantities and quality of the straw and fodder provided and/or acceptable in exchange for the manure.

The trial court resolved the conflicts in the evidence in favor of respondent corporation, and, after allowing credits for suitable exchange products delivered or available, entered judgment against appellants in the sum of $21,394.03, together with interest from October 3, 1963. This appeal followed.

Appellants make seven assignments of error, which they in turn combine and reduce to four arguments. Two of the arguments or contentions are addressed to legal issues passed upon by the trial court, and the remaining two claims are directed to the credibility and weight of respondent's evidence and/or the sustainability of the trial court's findings of fact based thereon.

By one of their claims of legal error, appellants attack the admissibility of two exhibits reflecting the basis upon which respondent computed the tonnage of manure delivered and spread upon appellants' premises. The first of these exhibits (exhibit No. 2) purports to be a tally sheet, prepared by Ervin Yoerger in the regular course of the Yoerger brothers' trucking business, listing the daily number of loads of manure hauled to the Carlisle farm between February 14 and March 20, 1961. The second exhibit (exhibit No. 3), is the invoice prepared by respondent's bookkeeper and sent to appellants around March 27, 1961. This exhibit reflects the number of loads delivered as indicated by exhibit No. 2 and contains the computation by which the net tonnage of 9,378 tons was determined.

Appellants assert that these exhibits were not properly identified as business records and that, in any event, they do not fall within the abmit of the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act (RCW 5.45.020) and, accordingly, amount to hearsay.

We cannot agree with appellants.

RCW 5.45.020 provides:

A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.

As we stated in Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd., 42 Wash.2d 590, 607, 257 P.2d 179, 189 (1953):

The uniform act was passed by the Legislature for the purpose (among others) of making evidence that would otherwise be hearsay competent evidence. Where (as here) the trial court is satisfied that sufficient testimony has been adduced regarding the manner in which certain records have been kept and that their identity had been properly established in compliance with the act, no objection on the ground of hearsay can be entertained. * * *

In this state, the ruling of the trial judge in admitting or excluding such records is given much...