De La Cuesta v. Montgomery
Before: McFarland, Beatty
Synopsis
Account Stated—Interest.—An account stated bears interest from its date.
Id.—Support op Findings as to Account Stated.—The court,- upon the facts in this case, was fully warranted in finding that there was a stated account which was intended as and for a full and complete settlement between plaintiff and defendant up to that date. [Beatty, C. J., dissenting.]
Id. —■ Statement of Monet Indebtedness — Products op Farm not Included — Continuance op Management. — Where the account stated was only of the money indebtedness then subsisting between the parties, it appearing that the plaintiff was employed as agent and manager of a farm of the defendant, and that it was intended to continue such management, the fact that there were at the date of the account stated unsold products of the farm which were not included in the account stated cannot affect its validity.
Id.—Continuance or Monthly Salary—Change to Quantum Meruit —Support or Findings.—Where the findings properly construed are to the effect that during the whole of the month succeeding the account stated the plaintiff was entitled to a continuance of the agreed salary, and there was some evidence to support the findings to that effect, though the evidence was conflicting in relation thereto, the findings will not be disturbed; and an agreement made some time during that month as to a change of compensation to a quantum meruit will be held under the findings to apply only to succeeding months.
Opinion — McFARLAND
McFARLAND, J.
This is an action by plaintiff to recover for his services as agent and manager of certain farming lands of defendant, known as the College Ranch. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $855 and costs, which amounted to $377.55; and from this judgment defendant appeals. The predecessor of the present incumbent was Bishop Mora, who employed plaintiff as superintendent of said College Ranch in November, 1891, at a salary of eighteen hundred dollars a year, or one hundred and fifty dollars a month. The plaintiff continued in the employment at the said salary under Bishop Mora until June, 1896, when Bishop Mora was succeeded as an incumbent by Bishop Montgomery, who continued to employ plaintiff as before until October, 1896, when the salary was reduced by mutual consent to sixteen hundred dollars a year, but the employment continued at the reduced salary. Plaintiff contends that Ms employment continued at the last-named salary until February, 1898, and his complaint is framed on that theory; while defendant contends that Ms employment on a salary ceased in July, 1897, and that if he performed services afterwards he was to receive only what they were reasonably worth. His duties were to conduct all the affairs of the ranch, to lease parts of it, and to collect the rents, and if the rents were part grain to see to the threshing of it, to sell and dispose of all the produce
[117]
and property on the ranch and to pay out all necessary expenses, and, in general, to attend to the business “just as a man would manage his own property,” and to account to defendant for the receipts and disbursements. There are three counts in the complaint—the first upon an account stated on June 30, 1896, the second for services, etc., from June 30, 1896, to October 31, 1897, and the third for services from October 31, 1897, to October 31, 1898.
The court found that there was an account stated on June 30, 1896, of $342.25, and allowed interest thereon from its date, amounting to $119.12, and refused to consider any items of account prior to that time. It found, however, that the contract for his salary ceased in July, 1897; that after that date plaintiff rendered services which were to be paid for upon
quantum meruit;
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)