Macal Improvement Co. v. Hoskins

ADAMS, P. J.— Plaintiff brought this action against Roy Hoskins and his wife, Ruth, seeking a money judgment for $1,195.25 for rental of a tractor from it, and other expenses incidental to the use of same. Defendants denied the allegations of the complaint, and the case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. Findings in favor of defendants were [348]made and judgment entered accordingly. From that judgment this appeal has been taken.

The evidence shows that on January 24, 1947, Mr. Hoskins entered into a written agreement with one K. C. McGee by which McGee agreed to move earth for a dam to be constructed upon land belonging to Mrs. Hoskins, for the cost of construction of which the federal government had agreed to contribute $1,412.20. In order to undertake the work for which he was employed McGee rented the tractor in controversy from plaintiff, agreeing to pay a rental of $5.00 an hour for every hour the equipment was used, and to pay the operating expenses of same. McGee employed Floyd Greiner, who had previously been in the employ of plaintiff, to operate the tractor, and the work was commenced. After Greiner had been at work for a few days or weeks, McGee gave him two checks for his services, both of which checks were dishonored, and made good by appellant. It appeared that McGee was then out on bail after having been arrested for issuance of a cheek to another person without funds to cover same, and, in short, was in such financial trouble that defendants became concerned for fear the dam would not be completed on time. McGee, however, continued to use the tractor which he had rented from plaintiff until it became disabled and plaintiff took it off the job. In the meantime, Mr. Hoskins paid Greiner his wages and also paid for gas and oil furnished for the tractor, his intention, as he testified, being that what he paid for gas and oil would be deducted from the, sum due on McGee’s contract.

McGee having failed to pay to plaintiff the rental due it under his contract, plaintiff sued defendants, alleging that they had entered into an oral contract with it for rental of the tractor and had agreed, in addition, to reimburse plaintiff for moneys which it had paid to Greiner, and had also agreed to pay additional expenses incurred to keep the equipment in good repair, and for transportation of same to Antioch when the tractor became disabled.

The trial court found that the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint were not true and that defendants were not indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatsoever.