Jordan v. Reynolds

PEEK, J. This controversy arises out of an agreement concerning a sawmill located upon land in Mendocino County held by respondent Reynolds under a lease from respondent Allenthorp.

Appellants by their action sought to recover damages consisting of lost profits allegedly sustained as the result of Reynolds’ repossession of the mill which appellants termed an eviction, and for damages for the alleged conversion of the [195]uncut logs upon the premises at the time of the aforesaid repossession. Respondents filed an answer and cross-complaint and the case was tried before the court without a jury.

The trial court found that Reynolds agreed to sell the sawmill to appellants for $5,000 payable at the rate of $1.50 per thousand board feet of lumber cut by the mill in not to exceed five years, with a minimum payment of $25 per month when appellants should be unable to operate the mill for a period of 30 days due to bad weather; that appellants entered into possession on or about October 1, 1944, and operated until December, 1944, but did not operate thereafter in a consistent and profitable manner; that operations were abandoned by appellants prior to September 2, 1945; that on September 2, 1945, Reynolds served a 30-day notice to quit the premises; that on or about October 25, 1945, Reynolds peaceably took possession of the premises and sold the same for $4,000; that during the period in which appellants were in possession they paid Reynolds $312.23 and tendered an additional $175 which Reynolds refused; that during said period appellants cut 207,-573 feet of lumber; that the sawmill could have reasonably cut from 10 to 15 thousand board feet of lumber per day each day it was operated; that the amount cut by appellants was not a substantial compliance with the terms of the agreement and the payments made were not a substantial compliance with the terms of payment of the agreement; that Reynolds’ reentry and repossession of the mill was legal and proper and did not constitute an eviction of appellants; that appellants built new roads and improved existing ones on the premises, installed a motor at the mill, and changed the belts and rollers upon the sawing equipment, all of which cost appellants $7,000; that appellants’ operating costs during the period in which they operated were $26 per thousand feet; that the price at which appellants sold the lumber averaged $32 per thousand feet and that appellants were the owners of 256,685 feet of uncut logs on October 25,- 1945, but were not in possession thereof since they had abandoned them on the premises where the mill was situated and that appellants were not- excused by reason of weather conditions or the existence of a claimed labor shortage.