No. 13544
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TIE STATE OF I4ONTANA
1977
ELLEN J. RICKL,
Plaintiff and Xespondent,
BRAND S. LUMBER COMPANY,
a corporation,
Defendant and Appellant:
Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert L. Kelleher argued, B illings, Montana
For Respondent :
Leonard H. McKinney argued, Lewistown, Montana
Submitted: January 21, 1977
Decided: CEfi 16 ?Qn
-.-+
Filed: -'k[3i:.k
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
This i s an appeal from an award of damages by t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Fergus County, s i t t i n g without a jury. P l a i n t i f f Ellen
J . Rick1 owned a p i e c e of land adjacent t o land on which defendant
Brand S. Lumber Company had secured consent t o c u t timber. The
lumber company admitted by s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t i t had gone upon t h e
r e a l property belonging t o p l a i n t i f f and c u t 208,000 board f e e t
of timber.
The s o l e i s s u e a t t r i a l and on appeal i s t h e measure and
amount of damages.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e s e f a c t s :
1 ) P l a i n t i f f d i d not e n t e r i n t o any c o n t r a c t t o s e l l timber
and d i d n o t want t h e timber disturbed.
2) The t r e s p a s s was n o t w i l l f u l nor malicious b u t t h e r e
was i n d i c a t i o n of l a c k of due c a r e .
3) The land was damaged a s a r e s u l t of t h e logging.
4) The f a i r value of t h e timber taken was $25 per thousand
board f e e t stumpage o r $75 per thousand board f e e t a t t h e m i l l .
The c o u r t ' s conclusions of law held:
1) P l a i n t i f f s u f f e r e d l o s s 05 t h e timber removed and d e t r i -
ment t o t h e r e a l property not e a s i l y t r a n s l a t a b l e t o money damages.
2) A damage award based on stumpage value would give
defendant t h e b e n e f i t of i t s own wrong.
3) P l a i n t i f f should recover damages i n t h e amount of $75
per thousand board f e e t , together with c o s t s .
I n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p l a i n t i f f argued s e c t i o n 17-503,
R.C.M. 1947, which g r a n t s t r e b l e damages f o r i n j u r y t o t r e e s where
t h e t r e s p a s s was o t h e r than c a s u a l o r involuntary was t h e a p p l i -
cable s t a t u t e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted damages based on a c t u a l
detriment only and n o t t r e b l e damages, P l a i n t i f f abandoned argu-
ment t h a t s e c t i o n 17-503, R.C.M. 1947, was t h e proper s t a t u t e
during o r a l argument t o t h i s Court.
The lumber company c i t e d t e x t s and c a s e s from o t h e r
s t a t e s holding t h a t t h e general measure of damages i s t h e v a l u e
a t t h e time of conversion. Section 17-404, R.C.M. states:
"The detriment caused by t h e wrongful conversion of
personal property i s presumed t o be:
1. The value of t h e property a t t h e time of i t s
conversion, with t h e i n t e r e s t from t h a t time; o r
where t h e a c t i o n has been prosecuted w i t h reasonable
d i l i g e n c e , t h e h i g h e s t market value of t h e property
a t any time between t h e conversion and t h e v e r d i c t ,
without i n t e r e s t , a t t h e option of t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y ;
and,
2. A f a i r compensation f o r t h e time and money properly
expended i n p u r s u i t of t h e property."
The h i g h e s t value of t h e lumber i n t h e hands of t h e p a r t y
t h a t converted i t i s t h e market value a t t h e m i l l . I t i's c l e a r
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f e l t t h a t stumpage value alone would g i v e t h e
lumber company t h e b e n e f i t of i t s own wrong and encourage t r e s p a s s
and conversion, e s p e c i a l l y where t h e r e i s b e t t e r timber on
adjoining land where t h e owner w i l l n o t s e l l . Since t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t d i d n o t g r a n t i n t e r e s t i t i s obvious t h a t h i g h e s t value was
used.
W e f i n d no e r r o r . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
i s affirmed. ,?
W e Concur:
L,,
1 4""
I/' &&
>
; :- zj
;E2
-d
N
chief Just c e
Rickl v. Brand S Lumber Co.
Combined Opinion