No. 82-16
I N T E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA
H F
1982
WILLIAM R. MORSE,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
vs.
LEO J. CREMER, J R . , f o r h i m s e l f ,
i n d i v i d u a l l y and f o r and on b e h a l f of
BERTHA R. CREMER, I N C . , e t a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t 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 ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f P.ark,&-d
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellants:
B e r g e r , S i n c l a i r & N e l s o n , B i l l i n g s , M.ontana
F o r Respondent :
D r y s d a l e , McLean, S c r e n a r , Cok & Wheat, Bozeman,
Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A p r i l 2 2 , 1982
Decided : JUW3 0 19bZ
Filed:
m!
! WXL.0 $. ?fwf
/ Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of
the Court.
W i l l i a m Morse b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y fees
against the defendants. The c a u s e was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e D i s -
t r i c t Court, s i t t i n g without a jury, in the Sixth Judicial
D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f
Sweet G r a s s . Judgment was entered for Morse against all
named appellants for the full amount of the complaint,
$13,338.69. A l l a p p e l l a n t s a p p e a l t h e judgment.
The t h e o r y of respondent's s u i t was f o r an a c c o u n t -
ing; b a s i c a l l y f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s rendered over a long period
of time to a rancher client. Following numerous m o t i o n s ,
p r o c e e d i n g s and d i s c o v e r y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a p r e t r i a l
o r d e r on A p r i l 22, 1981. The a g r e e d f a c t s a r i s i n g o u t o f
the pretrial order were (1) that the plaintiff is an
a t t o r n e y a t law, d u l y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n t h e S t a t e of
Montana, who performed legal services for the defendants
prior to the f i l i n g of the action in t h i s matter; and (2)
t h a t $50 p e r h o u r is a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e f o r s e r v i c e s
r e n d e r e d by r e s p o n d e n t .
R e s p o n d e n t i s a l a w y e r i n A b s a r o k e e , Montana, a n d h a s
r e p r e s e n t e d a p p e l l a n t s i n v a r i o u s l e g a l m a t t e r s from b e f o r e
1970 t h r o u g h March 1980. During t h i s time respondent and
a p p e l l a n t s e s t a b l i s h e d an a t t o r n e y / c l i e n t relationship that
was c l o s e , informal and p e r s o n a l . Respondent also billed
appellants informally. The testimony indicates that, as
respondent performed work, he p r e p a r e d a slip listing the
s e r v i c e s performed and the time involved. Each month the
s e r v i c e s and t i m e i n v o l v e d were added t o a s i n g l e b i l l .
The slips from which the billings were made were
shown t o a p p e l l a n t s , and t h e c h a r g e s and s e r v i c e s o v e r t h i s
p e r i o d of time were d i s c u s s e d . A f t e r t h i s was d o n e , r e s p o n -
d e n t d i s p o s e d of t h e s l i p s and t r a n s f e r r e d a memorandum o f
t h e amounts i n v o l v e d t o an a c c o u n t book o f a p p e l l a n t , Leo J.
Cremer, Jr., with n o t a t i o n s a s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n o r s e r v i c e s
involved. Testimony at trial indicated respondent gave
appellants a monthly billing. At various times over the
years the account remained unpaid and accumulated into
r a t h e r l a r g e amounts of money w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n s b e i n g r a i s e d
by e i t h e r s i d e . When payments were made, t h e y were made by
Leo J . C r e m e r , J r . , on h i s r a n c h a c c o u n t . The c h e c k s f r o m
Cremer t o r e s p o n d e n t i n d i c a t e d m e r e l y a payment o f f e e s .
From A p r i l 1 9 7 7 , u n t i l March 1 9 8 0 , r e s p o n d e n t r e p r e -
s e n t e d Leo J . C r e m e r , J r . , i n a n a c t i o n e n t i t l e d Cremer v ,
Cremer ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , 627 P.2d 1 1 9 9 , 38 St.Rep. 574,
a c a s e Cremer l o s t , D u r i n g t h i s same p e r i o d o f t i m e r e s p o n -
d e n t h a n d l e d numerous o t h e r m a t t e r s and a c t i o n s f o r a p p e l -
lants. Respondent claims that i n J a n u a r y 1980 a p p e l l a n t s
owed him more than $10,000 and that at that time Leo J.
Cremer paid respondent $10,000. Respondent indicated
through an e x h i b i t t h a t a l l a c c o u n t s e x c e p t t h e Cremer v .
Cremer c a s e were p a i d t o d a t e by t h e $10,080 payment. Late
i n J a n u a r y 1980, a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t r e t u r n
t o him $ 5 , 0 8 0 o f t h e $10,000 p a i d e a r l i e r t h a t month. Leo
Cremer, J r . , a g r e e d i n w r i t i n g t o r e p a y t h i s sum t o r e s p o n -
d e n t b u t d i d n o t do s o . At t h e t i m e h e r e t u r n e d t h e money
to appellants, respondent added the $5,000 to the Cremer
account a s p a r t of t h e accounts r e c e i v a b l e .
Throughout t h i s time t h e i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e
p a r t i e s was s u c h that respondent c o n t i n u a l l y performed
services for a p p e l l a n t s and Cremer periodically made pay-
m e n t s t o r e s p o n d e n t on h i s b e h a l f and on b e h a l f o f t h e o t h e r
appellants for services performed. Respondent's records
indicate that throughout this period, in addition to his
hourly charges f o r h i s services, he r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d
from appellants costs and other expenditures. The trial
c o u r t found t h e s e e x p e n s e s r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y .
I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n f a v o r
of respondent, t h e t r i a l c o u r t j u d g e s u b m i t t e d a memorandum
setting out the reasons for his ruling, There the court
noted that the central issue was how much was owed and
whether the proof of the account made under Rule 803 o r
1 0 0 6 , Mont.R.Evid., was a p p l i c a b l e . The c o u r t n o t e d :
"The d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t s t o i t s a d m i s s i o n ; h e
i n s i s t s i t is a t t h e b e s t n o t h i n g more t h a n a
summary; t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l t i m e and c o s t s
s h e e t s a r e t h e o r i g i n a l documents. The e v i -
d e n c e s h o w s p l a i n t i f f l a w y e r made t h e s e
e n t r i e s from t i m e and c o s t s h e e t s and t h e n
d e s t r o y e d them!
"The C o u r t r e a l i z e d t h i s c o n t e s t on admis-
s i b i l i t y was c r u c i a l and r u l e d t o t a k e i t
u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t , a s k e d f o r b r i e f s and l e t
t h e evidence proceed s u b j e c t t o defendants'
objection.
" I r u l e i t a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 8 0 3 , M.R.Ev.
" I t adds nothing t o t h e record t o c r i t i c i z e
t h e s l o p p y , m e a n d e r i n g way t h e a c c o u n t i s ,
b u t t h e r e c o r d is e l o q u e n t t h a t b o t h h o u s e s
--both t h e a t t o r n e y ' s and t h e r a n c h e r ' s--were
g u i l t y o f t h e same m e t h o d s o f r e c o r d k e e p i n g .
The payment o f t h e c h e c k by r a n c h e r t o l a w y e r
and p a r t i a l payment back is a b o o k k e e p e r ' s
nightmare, I ' v e a t t a c h e d t h e diagram fur-
n i s h e d by p l a i n t i f f t o h i g h l i g h t t h i s t o p s y -
turvy situation."
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l a r e :
1. Whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 is a d m i s s i b l e
u n d e r R u l e 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R,Evid.
2. Whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 is a d m i s s i b l e
under R u l e 1fl06, Mont .R.Evid.
3. I f r e s p o n d e n t is e n t i t l e d t o judgment, whether he
is e n t i t l e d t o judgment a g a i n s t B e r t h a C r e m e r , I n c . , Cremer
Rodeo Land and L i v e s t o c k , B e r t h a Cremer E n t e r p r i s e s , Crazy
Mountain R e s o u r c e s and B e r t h a Cremer.
W a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and f i n d i t s a d m i s s i o n
e
o f t h e e v i d e n c e u n d e r R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , Mont,R.Evid., controlling
here.
R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , Mont.R.Evid,, provides:
" H e a r s a y e x c e p t i o n s : a v a i l a b i l i t y of d e c l a r -
a n t immaterial.
"The f o l l o w i n g a r e n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e h e a r -
s a y r u l e , e v e n t h o u g h t h e d e c l a r a n t is a v a i l -
able a s a witness:
" ( 6 ) Records of r e g u l a r l y conducted a c t i v i t y .
A memorandum, report, record, or data
c o m p i l a t i o n , i n a n y form, o f a c t s , e v e n t s ,
c o n d i t i o n s , o p i n i o n s , o r d i a g n o s i s , made a t
o r n e a r t h e time of t h e a c t s , e v e n t s , condi-
t i o n s , opinions, or diagnosis, i f kept in t h e
c o u r s e of a r e g u l a r l y conducted b u s i n e s s
a c t i v i t y , and i f i t was t h e r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e
o f t h a t b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y t o make t h e memo-
randum, r e p o r t , r e c o r d , o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n ,
a l l a s shown by t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e c u s t o -
dian or other q u a l i f i e d witness, unless t h e
s o u r c e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o r t h e method o r
c i r c u m s t a n c e s of p r e p a r a t i o n i n d i c a t e l a c k o f
trustworthiness. The t e r m ' b u s i n e s s ' a s u s e d
i n t h i s paragraph includes business, i n s t i t u -
t i o n , association, profession, occupation,
and c a l l i n g of e v e r y k i n d , w h e t h e r o r n o t
conducted f o r prof it,"
Appellants argue t h a t respondent's Exhibit 1 does n o t
conform to the requisites of Rule 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R.Evid.,
becaus e under t h i s r u l e t h r e e c r i t e r i a m u s t be met b e f o r e
the document is admissible to the hearsay rule: (1) t h e
document must be a memorandum; (2) t h e memorarldum must be
made a t o r n e a r t h e t i m e o f the event; and (3) i t must be
made i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s . Appellants argue
t h a t t h e second e l e m e n t h a s n o t been s a t i s f i e d h e r e , c i t i n g
30 Am.Jur.2d E v i d e n c e , s e c t i o n 938.
A s previously noted, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s p o n -
dent and a p p e l l a n t s was a c o n t i n u i n g one b r o u g h t a b o u t by
numerous l a w s u i t s and a personal confidential relationship
that sometimes involved daily telephone calls and other
f r e q u e n t communications. One o f the business relationships
that respondent had with a p p e l l a n t s was a contract for a
total of $25,000 in which respondent would probate the
e s t a t e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t and h i s s o n o r w i f e , w h i c h e v e r d i e d
first. T h a t c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d f o r a n n u a l payments o f $2,500
a year. Respondent t e s t i f i e d a b o u t h i s bookkeeping methods:
"Our o f f i c e procedure involved keeping time
and c h a r g e s memorandum on s m a l l memorandum
s l i p s t h a t were k e p t f o r t h a t p u r p o s e , on a
t e m p o r a r y b a s i s u n t i l s u c h t i m e a s t h e y were
transcribed into t h i s ledger. And we u s u a l l y
r e t a i n them u n t i l a f t e r t h e b i l l i n g t o t h e
c l i e n t i n c a s e t h e r e is any q u e s t i o n a b o u t
it. And a f t e r t h e b i l l i n g t o t h e c l i e n t t h e
n o t e s i n v o l v e d t h a t a p p e a r t o be s u p e r f l u o u s ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e s e , a r e d i s c a r d e d .'I
Some of t h e c h a r g e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r a p p e l l a t e work,
w e r e a l l o w e d t o a c c r u e f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e b e f o r e t h e y were
billed to the client. T h i s bookkeeping system appeared t o
be s a t i s f a c t o r y t o a l l c o n c e r n e d u n t i l 1 9 8 0 , when t h e $ 5 , 0 0 0
c h a r g e b a c k came i n t o q u e s t i o n .
I n support of h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t E x h i b i t 1 does n o t
r e f l e c t t h e t i m e l i n e s s of e n t r y o f t h e d o c u m e n t s r e q u i r e d t o
comply w i t h t h e s e c o n d p a r t o f R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , a p p e l l a n t s r e l y
on two c a s e s , Tabata v. Murane ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 76 Cal.App.2d 887,
174 P.2d 6 8 4 , and H a l l m a r k B u i l d e r s , Inc., e t al, v . Anthony
( T e x , 1 9 7 7 ) , 547 S.W.2d 681. In Tabata the c o u r t s t a t e d :
"The c o u r t would have been j u s t i f i e d i n
r e g a r d i n g t h e w r i t i n g s a s mere f r a g m e n t s o f
a n a c c o u n t r e l a t i n g t o o n l y a p a r t of t h e
b u s i n e s s d e a l i n g s o f p l a i n t i f f and d e c e d e n t .
B e f o r e an a c c o u n t is a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e
f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a c a u s e of
a c t i o n of an openbook a c c o u n t , i t m u s t b e
shown t o h a v e been a c c u r a t e l y k e p t , which was
n o t done i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and i t m u s t b e
s o c o m p l e t e a s t o show t h e b a l a n c e o f i n d e b t -
e d n e s s d u e from o n e p a r t y t o t h e o t h e r , i n
which r e s p e c t a l s o p l a i n t i f f ' s e v i d e n c e was
deficient." 1 7 4 P,2d a t 686.
Here, while respondent's testimony indicated that
certain errors were made and later corrected, the trial
judge found that the entries testified t o were accurately
made. T h e r e f o r e , T a b a t a is n o t a p p l i c a b l e .
Hallmark B u i l d e r s , s u p r a , is c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e ,
In t h a t case, t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t s i n c e some i n v o i c e s f o r
the sale of building materials were not compiled until
s e v e r a l months a f t e r t h e o r d e r had been f i l l e d , t h e i n v o i c e s
were n o t admissible. Here, respondent testified that all
s l i p s were i m m e d i a t e l y e n t e r e d i n t o h i s books. In addition,
t h e b i l l i n g was d i s c u s s e d e a c h month w i t h a p p e l l a n t who was
given an opportunity to, and at times did, discuss and
d i s a g r e e with v a r i o u s i t e m s a p p e a r i n g on the s l i p s before
t h e y were d i s p o s e d o f .
This Court appointed a Commission on the Rules of
E v i d e n c e and i t s r e p o r t a p p e a r s w i t h R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e i n 3
MCA A n n o t a t i o n s . The e x c e p t i o n to Rule 803(6) relied on
h e r e was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n t h e u n i f o r m r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e
except for a phrase deleted from the federal and uniform
r u l e which m i g h t h a v e r e s u l t e d in a greater restriction t o
the then existing Montana law. The C o m ~ n i s s i o n Comments
indicated that t h e exception i n Montana's uniform b u s i n e s s
records evidence rule is substantially the same as the
f e d e r a l r u l e and t h a t Montana h a d , p r i o r t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f
t h e new r u l e s , o p e r a t e d u n d e r t h e u n i f o r m a c t . As to this
e x c e p t i o n , t h e Commission s a i d i n p a r t :
" I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l o w s
o p i n i o n s and d i a g n o s i s ( c o n t a i n e d i n t h e
r e c o r d ) t o be a d m i s s i b l e ; t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h K l a u s v. H i l b e r r y , 1 5 7 Mont. 277, 285,
485 P.2d 54 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , which a l l o w e d m e d i c a l
r e p o r t s c o n t a i n i n g o p i n i o n s and d i a g n o s i s t o
be a d m i t t e d and r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n 93-801-2,
R.C.M. 1947 [ s u p e r s e d e d ] . I t should a l s o be
n o t e d t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n c o u l d be s e e n a s an
e x p a n s i o n o f e x i s t i n g Montana law t o t h e
e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d s o f r e g u l a r l y con-
d u c t e d a c t i v i t y i n a wide v a r i e t y o f f o r m s ,
i n c l u d i n g computer p r i n t o u t s a r e a d m i s s i b l e . "
3 MCA A n n o t a t i o n s a t 260.
W f i n d t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n l a i d f o r a d m i s s i o n of t h e
e
a c c o u n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e more t h a n s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e -
ment o f t h e u n i f o r m a c t o r R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) . The q u e s t i o n s p r o -
pounded by respondent in laying the foundation for the
a c c o u n t were p r e p a r e d i n w r i t i n g f o r t r i a l and were s p e c i -
f i c a l l y b a s e d on r e q u i r e m e n t s of R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) a s w e l l a s t h e
former uniform a c t . Respondent n o t o n l y covered b u t indeed
f u l f i l l e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r f o u n d a t i o n under t h e r u l e .
Respondent relies on Edgewood Lumber Co. v. Hull
f o r t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of h i s a c c o u n t i n t h i s c a s e . There,
the p l a i n t i f f ' s b o o k k e e p e r made e n t r i e s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
account from a t e m p o r a r y memorandum c o n s i s t i n g of account
s h e e t s and t i c k e t s which were d i s p o s e d o f upon t h e e n t r y t o
the defendant's account. The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m e d the trial
c o u r t erroneously admitted t h e account i n t o evidence because
the s l i p s and t i c k e t s were n o t p r o d u c e d and t h e r e f o r e the
account was not the best evidence. The appellate court
a f f i r m e d t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s a y i n g :
"Elence, f o l l o w i n g t h e r u l e o f n e c e s s i t y which
o r i g i n a t e d t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of books of
a c c o u n t i n e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t s do n o t r e g a r d
s u c h t e m p o r a r y memoranda a s t h e o r i g i n a l
e n t r i e s , b u t look t o t h e permanent r e c o r d s a s
s u c h o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , where p r o p e r l y v e r i -
fied. I t is now w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e
f i r s t p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s
by t h e c r e d i t o r a r e t o be deemed t h e o r i g i n a l
e n t r i e s , i f made i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e o f
b u s i n e s s and w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l y s h o r t t i m e
a f t e r the t r a n s a c t i o n s themselves, although
t h e i t e m s may have been f i r s t e n t e r e d a s a
t e m p o r a r y a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e memory upon some
s l a t e , book, p a p e r o r o t h e r s u b s t a n c e . I t is
o f no c o n s e q u e n c e what t h e m a t e r i a l was on
which t h e memoranda were made o r t h e s i z e o r
s h a p e of i t , a s l o n g a s i t was a mere m i n u t e ,
n o t i n t e n d e d t o be p r e s e v e d a s e v i d e n c e
i t s e l f o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , b u t t o be used i n
p r e p a r a t i o n of s u c h e v i d e n c e . I n such c a s e s
t h e books o f a c c o u n t i n t o which t h e e n t r i e s
have been t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e t e m p o r a r y
means of r e c o r d , and n o t t h e t e m p o r a r y
r e c o r d s t h e m s e l v e s , a r e t h e books of o r i g i n a l
entries.
" ' T h e c h a r a c t e r o f a book a s o n e o f o r i g i n a l
e n t r y is n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e mere f a c t t h a t
t h e t e m p o r a r y memoranda were made by a p e r s o n
o t h e r t h a n t h e o n e who k e p t t h e book o f f e r e d
i n t o evidence. I n o t h e r w o r d s , a book o f
a c c o u n t made u p i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e o f
business from the slips, reports, or
memoranda, f u r n i s h e d by t h e e m p l o y e e s who
c o n d u c t e d t r a n s a c t i o n s , which c o n s t i t u t e s t h e
f i r s t permanent r e c o r d of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s
e n t e r e d i n i t is a book o f o r i g i n a l e n t r y and
admissible i n evidence a s such.'" ~dgewood
Lumber, 223 S.W.2d a t 212.
S e e , J o n e s on E v i d e n c e ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 5 8 ) , s e c t i o n 614.
Here, not only was the trial court correct in
a d m i t t i n g t h e a c c o u n t u n d e r R u l e 8 8 3 ( 6 ) , i t was a l s o c o r r e c t
in i t s f i n d i n g of fact that respondent a c t u a l l y performed
the work for appellants because respondent testified
directly, from h i s k n o w l e d g e , as to the specific services
p e r f o r m e d and t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a r g e s .
S i n c e we f i n d t h e e x h i b i t was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d u n d e r
Rule 8Pi3, it is n o t necessary to consider whether i t was
a d m i s s i b l e under R u l e 1 0 0 6 , Mont.R.Evid.
The next issue raised for our consideration is
w h e t h e r r e s p o n d e n t is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a g a i n s t Bertha
R. Cremer, Inc., Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock, Bertha
Cremer E n t e r p r i s e s , C r a z y Mountain R e s o u r c e s and ~ e r t h a R.
Cremer.
W n o t e t h a t t h i s i s s u e is r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time
e
on a p p e a l . Cremer's argument a t t h e time of the pretrial
o r d e r was t h a t h e had a l r e a d y p a i d for these services, not
that the services had not been p e r f o r m e d for the various
appellants.
Leo J. Cremer, Jr., when called as a witness by
res pon d e n t , answered t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n :
"Q. And i n t h e management o f t h e s e you h a v e
d e a l t w i t h them a l l a s one Cremer e n t e r p r i s e ,
h a v e you n o t ? A. I h a v e been i n v o l v e d i n
a l l o f them, y e s . "
H i s testimony, a s w e l l a s other testimony, indicated
t h a t Leo J, C r e m e r , J r ., was i n c h a r g e o f t h e management o f
a l l t h e v a r i o u s e n t i t i e s named a s d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t t h e y
were d e a l t w i t h a s one Cremer e n t e r p r i s e .
The f i n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e e f f e c t o f t h e c o u r t ' s
p r e t r i a l o r d e r when i s s u e d . T h i s i s s u e is o f c o n s i d e r a b l e
i m p o r t b o t h t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t i n a r r i v i n g
a t our decisions, R u l e 1 6 , M,R.Civ.P., provides:
"The c o u r t s h a l l make a n o r d e r which r e c i t e s
the action taken a t the conference, the
amendments a l l o w e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , and t h e
a g r e e m e n t s made by t h e p a r t i e s a s t o any o f
t h e m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d , and which l i m i t s t h e
i s s u e s f o r t r i a l t o t h o s e n o t d i s p o s e d of by
a d m i s s i o n s o r a g r e e m e n t s of c o u n s e l ; and s u c h
o r d e r when e n t e r e d c o n t r o l s t h e s u b s e q u e n t
c o u r s e of t h e a c t i o n , u n l e s s m o d i f i e d a t t h e
t r i a l to prevent manifest i n j u s t i c e . The
c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n may e s t a b l i s h by r u l e
a p r e t r i a l c a l e n d a r on which a c t i o n s may be
p l a c e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s above provided
and may e i t h e r c o n f i n e t h e c a l e n d a r t o j u r y
a c t i o n s o r t o nonjury a c t i o n s o r extend it t o
a l l actions,"
Such an o r d e r was made i n t h i s c a s e and p r o v i d e d in
pertinent part:
"The f o l l o w i n g f a c t s were a d m i t t e d , a g r e e d t o
be t r u e and r e q u i r e no p r o o f .
"1. The P l a i n t i f f is a n a t t o r n e y a t l a w ,
d u l y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n t h e S t a t e of
Montana and p e r f o r m e d l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e
D e f e n d a n t s , p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e a c t i o n
in t h i s matter,
"2. T h a t $50.00 p e r h o u r is a r e a s o n a b l e
a t t o r n e y ' s f e e f o r s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by
Plaintiff.
"PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
" P l a i n t i f f ' s contentions are a s follows:
"1. P l a i n t i f f is a d u l y l i c e n s e d and p r a c -
t i c i n g a t t o r n e y i n t h e S t a t e of Montana and
performed l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Defendants
a t t h e r e a s o n a b l e and a g r e e d v a l u e o f $50.00
per hour.
"2. T h a t D e f e n d a n t s owe P l a i n t i f f f o r s u c h
legal s e r v i c e s t h e sum o f $13,338.69,
t o g e t h e r w i t h i n t e r e s t and c o s t s ,
"DEFENDANTS ' CONTENTIONS:
"Defendants' contentions a r e a s follows:
" T h a t D e f e n d a n t s do n o t owe P l a i n t i f f t h e
a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s c l a i m e d , o r any a t t o r n e y ' s
f e e s , t h e y having f u l l y p a i d P l a i n t i f f f o r
a l l l e g a l work c o m p l e t e d by him, o r f o r them,
in the past.
"ISSUES OF FACT:
"The i s s u e s o f f a c t a r e a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e
P l a i n t i f f ' s and D e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n s , "
From t h e a b o v e p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r and i n
view of the f a c t s admitted, t h e t r i a l c o u r t was l e f t w i t h
o n l y two c o n t e n t i o n s t o be p r o v e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t - - n a m e l y ,
t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s a g r e e d t o pay t h e $50 a n h o u r and t h a t
t h e y owed the sum o f $13,338.69 plus costs. Appellants1
sole contention was that they owed nothing, having fully
paid t h e respondent.
R e s p o n d e n t 1s testimony is left uncontradicted that
t h e a g r e e d v a l u e was i n f a c t $50 p e r h o u r and t h a t h e d i d
perform the services of value as contended and that
a p p e l l a n t s p r o d u c e d no p r o o f w h a t s o e v e r o f payment. W rely
e
on D a v i s v. D a v i s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 355, 3 6 0 , 497 P.2d 315,
318, i n d e c i d i n g t h i s m a t t e r where t h i s C o u r t h e l d :
"The p r e t r i a l o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h d e f e n d a n t ' s
contentions indicates that the contracts
u n d e r which t h e p l a i n t i f f s were employed were
t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , and m a i n t a i n s a d e n i a l o f
any of p l a i n t i f f s ' alleged c o n t r a c t s with
defendant. T h i s Court is compelled t o a g r e e
w i t h p l a i n t i f f s 1 argument t h a t i t s t a n d s t o
r e a s o n i f t h e r e were no c o n t r a c t s t h e r e c o u l d
be no b r e a c h e s , and i f t h e a g r e e m e n t s were
terminable a t w i l l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s were
e n t i t l e d t o t e r m i n a t e a t a n y t i m e t h e y saw
fit. However, of more c r u c i a l w e i g h t i s t h e
p r o c e d u r a l p r o c e s s which r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e
i s s u e s of w a i v e r and b r e a c h were n o t made
i s s u e s a t t h e t r i a l and t h u s may n o t be
i n t r o d u c e d on a p p e a l . T h i s C o u r t h a s s a i d on
numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t i t w i l l c o n s i d e r f o r
review only those q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h e
t r i a l court. [Citing cases.]"
Here t h e s t a t e o f t h e r e c o r d and t h e p r o o f produced
a t t r i a l s u p p o r t s t h e c o u r t l s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and judgment.
The judgment is a f f i r m e d .
, . Justice /
W concur:
e