Mattoon v. Steiff

SCHOTTKY, J.

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendant to recover the sum of $1,004 alleged to be due from defendant to plaintiff. Defendant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and also filed a cross-complaint alleging that plaintiff had agreed to do and complete certain work for defendant within a specified time and because of plaintiff’s failure to do so defendant had been damaged in the sum of $2,750.

The action was tried by the ■ court without a jury and the court found that defendant rented and hired from the plaintiff a Ford tractor with an operator, at the agreed and reasonable sum of $3.50 an hour for a total of 70% hours, the total rental earned therefor being $246.75; that defendant similarly rented and hired a TD-14 tractor together with operator at the agreed and reasonable value of $6.50 an hour for 116% hours, for which defendant became indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $757.25. The court further found defendant was fprced to and did expend the reasonable sum of $150 in reworking certain farm lands owned by him for the purpose of making them suitable for his use and that said

[513]

defendant should be entitled to a credit against the plaintiff’s demands in the said sum of $150; and the court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant in the sum of $854. Judgment was entered accordingly, and in ruling upon and denying defendant’s motion for a new trial the court ordered that the findings of fact and conclusions of law be amended in accordance with section 662 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that instead of finding that defendant had hired certain tractors and operators from plaintiff, the findings be made to read that defendant employed plaintiff to use certain men and equipment and agreed to pay plaintiff therefor the reasonable sum of $3.50 per hour for a Ford tractor and $6.50 per hour for a TD-14 tractor.

Defendant has appealed from the judgment and the substance of his contentions are: (1) That the court’s findings are not supported by the evidence which shows, without conflict, that respondent undertook, as an independent contractor, to perform a specific job at the prevailing rate for such work, and that respondent did not complete the performance of his contract and therefore is not entitled to recover the contract price; (2) that the court’s finding that appellant had to have some of the work redone shows that respondent did not complete his performance under the contract; and (3) that appellant is entitled to judgment in the sum of $900, appellant having lost his crop by reason of respondent’s nonperformance and the amount sought being the pasturage rental value of the acreage in question. Appellant admits that if there was a hiring of equipment or employment of respondent, then appellant (as hirer or employer) would be responsible for the hours consumed and the result of the work. Appellant does not claim that the hourly rates for the equipment were excessive in themselves, but he does complain that the total charge was excessive—that the job required more work hours than it should have, due to respondent’s frequent layoffs and the consequent redoing of work.