No. 13495
I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O MONTANA
F
1977
AGRILEASE, I N C . ,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
T E M GRAY,
HL A
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
_______-_-_____--_-___--------_----__------------
T E M GRAY,
HL A
Third P a r t y P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
AGRILEASE, I N C . ,
T h i r d P a r t y Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: District Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
H o n o r a b l e J a c k D. S h a n s t r m , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
H u t t o n , Sheehy and Cromley, B i l l i n g s , Montana
J o h n C. Sheehy a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent:
David DePuy a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
Submitted: May 2 3 , 1977
Decided: JuL S F 1971
Filed: J U L I P igiii
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County, a r i s e s
from a judgment where two c a u s e s of a c t i o n were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r
t r i a l and t r i e d by a j u r y . A g r i l e a s e , I n c . i s p l a i n t i f f i n one
a c t i o n and t h i r d p a r t y defendant i n t h e o t h e r . Thelma Gray i s
d e f e n d a n t i n one a c t i o n a n d t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f i n t h e o t h e r .
Agrilease appeals i n both cases.
I n F e b r u a r y 1974, Thelma Gray, a r a n c h e r a l o n g t h e
Yellowstone R i v e r , s o u t h of L i v i n g s t o n , Montana, c o n t r a c t e d w i t h
A g r i l e a s e , I n c . o f B i l l i n g s , Montana, f o r a pumping a n d i r r i g a -
t i o n s y s t e m d e s i g n e d t o t a k e w a t e r from t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r
and t o r a i s e i t o v e r 100 f e e t t o undeveloped l a n d f o r t h e
purpose of r a i s i n g a l f a l f a . The o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t was f o r
$34,235.00. T h e r e a f t e r changes r e q u i r i n g e x t r a work a n d material
u l t i m a t e l y r a i s e d t h e t o t a l c o s t t o $42,559.29. Gray made two
payments on t h e c o n t r a c t - - $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 on F e b r u a r y 26, 1974; a n d
$7,500 on May 31, 1974. No o t h e r payments were made.
Thelma Gray owned w a t e r r i g h t s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y l , O O O
m i n e r ' s i n c h e s o u t o f t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . The p l a n was f o r
a pumping s y s t e m t h a t would t a k e 500 i n c h e s o f w a t e r o u t o f t h e
r i v e r t o b e u s e d t o i r r i g a t e p r e v i o u s l y undeveloped l a n d .
M r . B i c k , a c t i n g f o r Agrilease, p l a c e d a p u r c h a s e o r d e r w i t h
Worthington V e r t i c a l Pump C o r p o r a t i o n on F e b r u a r y 21, 1974, f o r
a pump t h a t would pump and r a i s e some 4,000 g a l l o n s p e r m i n u t e
t o t h e l a n d s t o be i r r i g a t e d . H e r e q u e s t e d s h i p m e n t by May 21,
b u t t h e company i n i t s acknowledgement o f t h e o r d e r gave
September 13 a s t h e d e l i v e r y d a t e f o r t h e pump. The pump d i d
n o t a r r i v e u n t i l l a t e O c t o b e r when i t was i n s t a l l e d . Gray
t e s t i f i e d and was s u p p o r t e d by w i t n e s s e s who worked on t h e
r a n c h , t h a t B i c k a s s u r e d h e r he would have t h e system i n s t a l l e d
a n d working b e f o r e June 1, 1974. Bick denies t h i s and t e s t i f i e d
he d i d e v e r y t h i n g he c o u l d t o g e t t h e pump by June 1, b u t due t o
t h e Arabian o i l c r i s i s o f 1973 i n d u s t r i a l goods were h a r d t o get,
went u p i n p r i c e , a n d h e had problems of s u p p l y , shipment a n d
delivery.
The t e s t i m o n y c l e a r l y shows Gray i n d i c a t e d t o B i c k s h e
p l a n n e d t o b r e a k u p a n d p l a n t some 85 a c r e s o f p r e v i o u s l y un-
developed land t o r a i s e a l f a l f a . I n f a c t , t h a t was t h e r e a s o n
f o r t h e p r o j e c t and B i c k t o g e t t h e c o n t r a c t s u r v e y e d t h e l a n d
f o r d i t c h e s and l e v e l i n g . He was aware t h e l a n d was plowed,
planted and harvested. Due t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e pump t o a r r i v e
on t i m e f o r t h e 1974 h a y c r o p , t h e h a r v e s t was a d i s a s t e r . The
c r o p burned u p i n May a n d June and o n l y 70 t o n s were r e a l i z e d ,
when 155 t o 1 6 0 t o n s were a n t i c i p a t e d i f i r r i g a t i o n had been
available. Even t h e 70 t o n s would n o t have been p o s s i b l e , e x c e p t
B i c k f u r n i s h e d a small pump t o g e t some water t o t h e a c r e a g e .
He t e s t i f i e d i t c o s t him more t h a n $5,000 t o d o t h i s t o a s s i s t
Gray. I n a d d i t i o n Gray t e s t i f i e d s h e l o s t p a s t u r e i n 1974, due
t o t h e f a i l u r e of t h e pump t o a r r i v e a n d s h e had t o p u r c h a s e
hay t h a t y e a r .
To e s t a b l i s h t h e pumping system B i c k h a d t o b u i l d a
r e t a i n i n g w a l l n e a r t h e r i v e r and t o p r o v i d e i n l e t s from t h e
l o w e r p a r t o f t h e w a l l i n t o two sumps o r wet walls i n t o which
t h e Worthington pump was t o be i n s e r t e d t o remove w a t e r from t h e
r i v e r a n d o u t i n t o t h e p i p e l i n e and t h e n i n t o t h e d i t c h e s .
Approximately 2,200 f e e t o f 1 2 i n c h p i p e l i n e was t o b e u s e d .
Although t h e c o n t r a c t w a s s i g n e d i n F e b r u a r y a n d o r d e r s
were p l a c e d f o r t h e pump a n d t h e p i p e i n F e b r u a r y , B i c k d i d n o t
s t a r t c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r e t a i n i n g walls u n t i l e a r l y May. This
proved t o b e a bit l a t e f o r as usual. i n t h e s p r i n g t h e r i v e r
r i s e s r a p i d l y and i n 1974 t h e r e was a n u n u s u a l l y heavy r u n - o f f .
Bick t e s t i f i e d he b u i l t a d i k e f i v e t i m e s , t h e w a t e r coming over
each time, t o g e t r e t a i n i n g wall f o o t i n g s and f o u n d a t i o n s e s t a b -
lished.
The s t e e l p i p e a r r i v e d i n l a t e A p r i l , t h e motor t o
d r i v e t h e pump came i n May, t h e sump i n s t a l l a t i o n was f i n i s h e d
i n l a t e August, a l l t o o l a t e t o be of much h e l p t o t h e 1974 c r o p .
The pump a r r i v e d and was i n s t a l l e d and was a t t a c h e d t o
t h e p i p e a l r e a d y i n p l a c e i n October. Bick t e s t e d t h e o p e r a t i o n
of t h e pumping system i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f Mrs. Gray and h e r
employees and no problems were found w i t h t h e system a t t h a t t i m e .
The c o n t r a c t c a l l e d f o r a f i n a l payment upon t h e ~ o m p l e t i ~ o n
of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e system and i t b e i n g p u t i n t o o p e r a t i o n .
It was completed i n l a t e Q c t o b e r b u t Gray made no payment t h e n o r
a f t e r t h a t d a t e , a l t h o u g h she a d m i t s i t was due. Statements
were s e n t monthly t h e r e a f t e r and no p r o t e s t s were h e a r d from
Gray. To p r o t e c t i t s e l f A g r i l e a s e , I n c . f i l e d a mechanic's
l i e n a g a i n s t Mrs. G r a y ' s r a n c h i n t h e amount of $20,059.29.
I n May 1975, Bick was c a l l e d t o t h e r a n c h t o s t a r t t h e
system working. A f t e r s t a r t i n g up i t seemed t o work, s o he
s h u t i t o f f and t h e n s t a r t e d i t up when a " ~ u r p h ys w i t c h " , a
s a f e t y d e v i c e broke and had t o be removed and t a k e n t o B i l l i n g s .
This was n o t r e p l a c e d u n t i l June 15, 1975. Thereafter, e a r l y
i n J u l y a v i b r a t i o n developed and on August 7 o r 8, Bick removed
t h e pump from i t s w e l l and found t h e s t r a i n e r s u r r o u n d i n g t h e
s u c t i o n end o f t h e pump had c o l l a p s e d , and a r o c k had e n t e r e d
and lodged i n t h e i m p e l l e r . Bick a g r e e d t o t a k e t h e pump t o h i s
shop i n B i l l i n g s b u t asked Gray t o pay o f f t h e b a l a n c e of t h e
c o n t r a c t , o r a t l e a s t $10,000. She a g r e e d b u t d i d n o t pay, s o
Bick r e f u s e d t o go ahead w i t h t h e r e p a i r s . He took t h e pump and
i t s motor and h e l d them i n h i s shop.
A s a r e s u l t Gray a l l e g e d a l o s s of t h e 1975 hay c r o p .
B i c k a l l e g e d t h e s y s t e m would have worked w i t h o u t t h e " ~ u r p h y
s w i t c h " , b u t t h a t made l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e
jury. The i s s u e of n e g l i g e n c e i n n o t s c r e e n i n g t h e i n l e t s t o
the
t h e sump pump was s u b m i t t e d t o / j u r y a n d i t found a g a i n s t B i c k .
A judgment awarded A g r i l e a s e , I n c . damages a g a i n s t
Mrs. Gray i n a n amount o f $20,059.29; a n d a n award f o r Mrs. Gray
a g a i n s t A g r i l e a s e i n t h e sum o f $22,397 o r a n e t amount t o
Mrs. Gray of $2,337.71.
A p p e l l a n t A g r i l e a s e , I n c . r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on
appeal:
1. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n amending t h e v e r d i c t form,
o v e r o b j e c t i o n , and s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e j u r y a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n s
were s e t t l e d , a n i s s u e of damages t o t h e pump, when s u c h damages
were n o t p l e a d , were n o t b a s e d on e v i d e n c e and were n o t c o v e r e d
by j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s ?
2. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e j u r y , o v e r
o b j e c t i o n s , t h e i s s u e o f damages f o r t h e l o s s o f t h e hay c r o p
f o r t h e y e a r 1974, where t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e o f t h e market v a l u e
o f t h e h a y c r o p was b a s e d on g r o s s m a r k e t v a l u e , w i t h o u t d e d u c t i n g
t h e c o s t of production and marketing such crop?
3. Is A g r i l e a s e I n c . e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t on t h e u n p a i d
b a l a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t a s a m a t t e r o f law?
4. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e r
a n o f f s e t t o t h e A g r i l e a s e c l a i m f o r t h e payment of t h e L i n v i l l e
[ s u b c o n t r a c t o r u n d e r ~ g r i l e a s e ]l i e n i n e x c e s s o f $2,139.36?
I s s u e 1. T h i s i s s u e c o n c e r n s amendment o f t h e v e r d i c t
form a f t e r a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s had been s e t t l e d . The p o s t u r e o f
t h e c a s e was t h a t b o t h s i d e s had r e s t e d , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s were
s e t t l e d , a n d A g r i l e a s e , I n c . had o f f e r e d a v e r d i c t form f o r
submission t o the jury. A t t h a t p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r Gray moved
t h e c o u r t t o amend t h e v e r d i c t form, s o t h e j u r y c o u l d make
s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s on s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e s . One amendment
allowed permitted t h e jury t o award a sum f o r damages t o t h e
pump and t h e jury awarded $4,799 damages. A t t h e time t h e t r i a l
judge allowed t h e amendment he noted: "There was no proof i n
t h e r e a t a l l a s t o what i t would c o s t t o r e p a i r i t . "
W a g r e e and f i n d t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n allowing t h i s
e
amendment. Here, t h e complaint s e t f o r t h seven counts; none
covered t h e c o s t of r e p a i r t o t h e pump o r t h e damages t o t h e
pump. N e f f o r t was made t o prove t h e c o s t of r e p a i r o r t h a t
o
t h e pump o r t h e system s u s t a i n e d any l o s s i n market value by
v i r t u e of t h e damaged pump. The s o l e evidence a s t o t h e value
of t h e pump appears from A g r i l e a s e l s e x h i b i t , t h e purchase o r d e r ,
i n d i c a t i n g a c o s t of $4,000. There was nothing i n t h e r e c o r d
f o r t h e jury t o base a market value on, due t o t h e damage t o
t h e pump o r t h e c o s t of r e p a i r . N i n s t r u c t i o n s were given on
o
t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r t h e pump, nothing s u p p o r t s t h e $4,747 f i g u r e .
Gray argues t h e r e was evidence t h e pump c o s t $4,000;
t h a t i t was badly damaged and t h e c o s t t o r e p a i r i t would be a t
l e a s t $4,000. Gray c i t e s a s a u t h o r i t y t o amend a v e r d i c t form
t h e c a s e of Smith v'. Jacobsen, 224 O r . 627, 356 P.2d 421. . Neither
t h i s case nor c a s e s l a t e r c i t i n g i t a s a u t h o r i t y f o r amending
pleadings allowed an amendment a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e c a s e .
Dorr v. Janssen, 233 O r . 505, 378 P.2d 999; Beard v. Beard,
232 O r . 552, 376 P.2d 404, 406; Eck v. Market Basket, 264 O r . 400,
505 P.2d 1156. I n Beard t h e Oregon Court noted:
"* * * amendment i s allowed w i t h reasonable
l i b e r a l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e m a t t e r
covered by t h e amendment i s s u f f i c i e n t l y
brought t o t h e n o t i c e of t h e a d v e r s a r y i n t h e
o r i g i n a l pleading and during t h e t r i a l s o t h a t
he can be prepared t o meet t h e i s s u e . " 376 P'.2d 406.
That i s n o t t h e case b e f o r e u s . Here, Gray d i d n o t move t o amend
h e r pleadings t o conform t o t h e evidence, r a t h e r she moved t o
amend t h e v e r d i c t form t o i n c l u d e a n i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o damages
t o t h e motor c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e . The h o l d i n g o f t h i s C o u r t
i n Lovely v. Burroughs Gorp., 165 Mont. 209, 217, 527 P.2d 557,
controls :
a am ages may p r o p e r l y be awarded when t h e y
s e r v e t o compensate t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r d e t r i m e n t
proximately caused by t h e defendant. Section
17-301, R.C.M. 1947. B e f o r e a n award c a n be
made, t h e damages must be c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e
i n b o t h t h e i r n a t u r e a n d o r i g i n . S e c t i o n 17-302,
R.C.M. 1947. Damages which a r e a m a t t e r of mere
s p e c u l a t i o n c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s of r e c o v e r y .
[ c i t i n g c a s e s ] " 165 Mont. 217.
G r a y ' s r e l i a n c e on Bos v . Dola jak, 167 Mont. 1, 534
P.2d 1258, d o e s n o t b e a r f r u i t . There t h e damages were c e r t a i n
and c a p a b l e o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Here, t h e y a r e n o t . To r e c o v e r
t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g damages f o r l o s s o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y must
show i t s v a l u e b e f o r e a n d a f t e r o r t h e c o s t o f Y e p a i r . Bos v .
Dola jak, s u p r a ; Spackman v . Ralph M. P a r s o n s Co., 147 Mont. 500,
414 P.2d 918.
Issue 2. T h i s i s s u e c o n c e r n s a l l e g e d e r r o r by t h e t r i a l
c o u r t on damages f o r l o s s o f t h e 1974 h a y c r o p .
A g r i l e a s e a l l e g e s e v i d e n c e of t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e
h a y was b a s e d on t h e g r o s s m a r k e t v a l u e , w i t h o u t d e d u c t i n g t h e
c o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n and m a r k e t i n g .
Here, t h e j u r y awarded $13,585 f o r t h e l o s s o f t h e h a y
c r o p a n d f o r u s e o f p a s t u r e o c c a s i o n e d by A g r i l e a s e f s f a i l u r e t o
g e t water t o the crop. No v a l u e was a s s e s s e d t o t h e 1974 hay
crop loss i n the verdict. While Gray c l a i m e d damages f o r a l o s s
o f 155 t o n s , v a l u e d a t $43 p e r t o n , s h e d i d r e c o v e r a b o u t 70
t o n s from t h e f i r s t c u t t i n g , b u t t h e r e was n o e v i d e n c e i n t h e
r e c o r d on t h e c o s t o f plowing, weeding, o r h a r v e s t i n g t h a t c r o p .
The c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d as t o damages:
"YOU a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e measure o f
damages f o r t h e l o s s o f c r o p s a n d f o r a g e i s
t h e market v a l u e l e s s c o s t s o f growing t h e
c r o p s and f o r a g e s i f s o l d b y t h e grower,
however, i f t h e grower of t h e c r o p s o r f o r a g e
u s e s t h e c r o p s and f o r a g e l o s t f o r o t h e r f e e d
f o r t h e g r o w e r ' s l i v e s t o c k t h e n t h e measure
o f damages i s t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e c r o p s
a n d f o r a g e 10st I '.
T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n was improper and c a u s e d e r r o r due t o
t h e f a c t i t gave n o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e c o s t f a c t o r s . W find
e
no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o
where t h e c r o p s a r e u s e d t o f e e d t h e g r o w e r ' s c a t t l e , t h e p r o -
d u c t i o n c d s t s a r e t o be d e d u c t e d .
While Gray t e s t i f i e d s h e had t o p u r c h a s e hay t o r e p l a c e
h e r 1974 c r o p l o s s , s h e d i d n o t t e s t i f y how much was p u r c h a s e d
o r a t what p r i c e .
Gray r e l i e s on t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n E a b l o n s k i v .
C l o s e , 70 Mont. 292, 2 2 5 P. 129. That c a s e i s n o t i n p o i n t f o r
t h e r e t e s t i m o n y was p e r m i t t e d , b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o t a n e s t a b -
l i s h e d o r known market v a l u e f o r t i m o t h y h a y . Here, t h e m a r k e t
v a l u e was e s t a b l i s h e d b y Gray and o t h e r w i t n e s s e s .
I n a: l a t e r c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e l o s s o f a hay c r o p ,
. G o e t s c h i u s v . L a s i c h , 137 Mont. 465, 476, 353 P.2d 87, t h e
C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s r u l e f o r a s c e r t a i n i n g damages:
"NO c a l c u l a t i o n was made of t h e e x p e n s e o f
h a r v e s t i n g o r m a r k e t i n g t h e d r o p , which
s h o u l d have been f i g u r e d i n showing n e t l o s s .
I n e s t i m a t i n g h i s damages, h e i n c l u d e d $114.20
f o r t h a t which was n e c e s s a r y t o b e done i n
o r d e r t o r a i s e a c r o p , and t h e a c t u a l damages
he c o u l d r e c o v e r , would be $244, i f n o con-
s i d e r a t i o n be given c o s t of marketing, o r
h a r v e s t i n g c r o p , The c o u r t gave him a
judgment f o r $395.55 on a c c o u n t o f l o s s
of crop a g a i n s t a l l defendants.
"on t h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d , i t would a p p e a r
t h a t i f t h e p l a i n t i f f s s h o u l d have g r o s s e d
$244 from t h e i r c r o p , w i t h n e c e s s a r y p r e p a r a -
t i o n , and had a n e x p e n s e i n p r o d u c i n g t h e
c r o p o f $114.20, t h e i r n e t l o s s would be
$129.80. W know o f n o r u l e o f law which
e
would j u s t i f y t h e a l l o w a n c e s which were made
i n t h i s c a s e . " 137 Mont. 476.
T h i s c a s e f o l l o w s t h e l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e o f law i n t h i s
s t a t e t h a t only t h e n e t value, n o t t h e g r o s s value of l o s t crops
c a n be r e c o v e r e d . Carron v. Wood, 10 Mont. 500, 2 6 P. 388;
Hopkins v . B u t t e & Montana Commercial Co., 16 Mont. 356, 40 P.
865; Rass v . Sharp, 46 Mont. 474, 1 2 8 P. 594.
I s s u e 3. This i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o whether o r n o t
A g r i l e a s e i s e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e o f t h e
contract.
S e c t i o n 17-204, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s as t o c o n t r a c t
c l a i m s , t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n who i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r damages
c e r t a i n , o r c a p a b l e o f b e i n g c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n , a n d t h e
r i g h t t o r e c o v e r which i s v e s t e d i n him on a d a y c e r t a i n i s
a l s o e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n from t h a t d a y .
Respondent Gray a r g u e s t h a t A g r i l e a s e , I n c . c l a i m e d
i t e m s t o which i t was n o t e n t i t l e d , s o t h e a c c o u n t between them
was n o t " c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n " , t h e r e f o r e n o i n t e r e s t . In
s u p p o r t r e s p o n d e n t c i t e s Daly v. S w i f t & Co., 90 Mont. 52, 300
P. 265; S c h o o l D i s t . No. 1. v . Globe & R e p u b l i c I n s . Co., 146
Mont. 208, 404 P.2d 8 8 9 . W find these cases not applicable t o
e
the f a c t situation i n the instant case. I n e f f e c t , what r e s p o n d e n t
a r g u e s i s t h a t t h e r e c o v e r y o f i n t e r e s t on a l i q u i d a t e d c l a i m
c a n be d e f e a t e d by a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a n u n l i q u i d a t e d amount.
W d o n o t a g r e e , n o r d o we f i n d a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f r e s p o n d e n t t s
e
argument.
The c o n t r a c t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e p r o v i d e d f o r t h e f i n a l
payment on t h e day t h e s y s t e m w a s p l a c e d i n o p e r a t i o n . That date
came i n l a t e October 1974, a n d Gray r e c e i v e d monthly s t a t e m e n t s
t h e r e a f t e r by c e r t i f i e d m a i l . A t t r i a l the jury returned a
v e r d i c t i n t h e e x a c t amount o f t h o s e monthly s t a t e m e n t s $20,059.29,
b u t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r i n t e r e s t due t o a n e r r o r by t h e t r i a l
c o u r t i n f a i l i n g t o a p p r o v e a n i n s t r u c t i o n on a n a c c o u n t s t a t e d .
S e v e r a l C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s p r o p e r l y c o n s t r u e s e c t i o n 17-
204, R.C.M. 1947, as i t was t a k e n from t h e C a l i f o r n i a Code,
S e c t i o n 3287. The most r e c e n t C a l i f o r n i a c a s e T r i p p v. Swaap,
1 3 1 C a l . R p t r . 789, 552 P.2d 749, 757, s e t s o u t t h e f a c t o r s
n e c e s s a r y t o s a t i s f y S e c t i o n 3287:
"Under S e c t i o n 3287, s u b d i v i s i o n ( a ) as i n t e r -
p r e t e d i n Mass, s u p r a , a c l a i m a n t must s a t i s f y
t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y of i n t e r e s t
i n a mandamus a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e : ( 1 ) There
must be a n u n d e r l y i n g monetary o b l i g a t i o n ; ( 2 )
t h e r e c o v e r y must be c e r t a i n o r c a p a b l e of
b e i n g made c e r t a i n by c a l c u l a t i o n ; and ( 3 ) t h e
r i g h t t o r e c o v e r must v e s t on a p a r t i c u l a r day. I t
552 P.2d 757
See a l s o : Hansen v . Covell, 218 Cal. 622, 24 P.2d 772; Lineman
v. Schmid, 32 C.2d 204, 195 P.2d 408; Anno. 60 ALR3d 487, 512.
Here A g r i l e a s e f u l f i l l e d t h e t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h
i n Tripp t o recover i n t e r e s t . I t s r i g h t t o payment a c c r u e d as
of October 1974, and t h e payment was f o r a n amount c e r t a i n . All
t h a t happened t h e r e a f t e r i n t h e summer of 1975 t o t h e " ~ u r p h y
s w i t c h " and t o t h e pump does n o t a f f e c t t h e f i n a l c o n t r a c t
payment d a t e . A s f o r t h e items t h a t might r e d u c e t h a t sum, t h e
unused pipe, t h e u s e o f G r a y ' s t r a c t o r , e t c . , a r e a l l e a s i l y
a s c e r t a i n a b l e and can be made c e r t a i n a t any t i m e . O fietrial
n
A g r i l e a s e i s e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t as a m a t t e r o f law.
Issue 4. This i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d a t t h e c o u r t ' s e r r o r
i n allowing t h e jury t o consider the o f f s e t t o the Agrilease
c l a i m f o r t h e payment of t h e L i n v i l l e l i e n i n e x c e s s of $2,139.49.
L i n v i l l e was t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r who f i l e d a l i e n on
G r a y ' s p r o p e r t y f o r payment of i t s a c c o u n t f o r e l e c t r i c a l
s e r v i c e s perfomed on t h e pump and t h e i r r i g a t i o n system. The
a c t i o n t o f o r e c l o s e t h e l i e n was s e t t l e d j u s t p r i o r t o t r i a l .
I f Gray had p a i d A g r i l e a s e t h e b a l a n c e of t h e c o n t r a c t when t h a t
a c c o u n t was due, t h e mechanic's l i e n by L i n v i l l e would n o t have
been f i l e d , f o r L i n v i l l e would t h e n have been p a i d by A g r i l e a s e ,
Inc. The t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d t h e jury t o award, by i t s
i n s t r u c t i o n , Gray t h e sum of $2,481. This amounted t o a
payment of i n t e r e s t t o L i n v i l l e and i t s a t t o r n e y f e e s . This
award was improper and s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a t r e t r i a l .
The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e
c a s e i s remanded f o r new t r i a l , u n l e s s i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , Gray
a g r e e s t o a c c e p t a r e d u c t i o n of $12,113.51 p l u s i n t e r e s t from
h e r t o t a l r e c o v e r y w i t h i n 30 d a y s .
W Concur:
e
Justices