207 P. 341 | Mont. | 1922
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action to recover $2,100, alleged damages for the injury and destruction of certain grain in shock, belonging to plaintiffs, on their land, by reason of a large number of cattle breaking into plaintiffs’ inclosed grain field, feeding and tramping upon such crops.
It appears that the plaintiff Rutledge leased from his coplaintiff certain lands in the valley of the Blaektail Deer Creek, Beaverhead county, Montana, which were inclosed by fence, 150 acres of which were planted in oats; that such grain crop grown thereon had, on the dates complained of, November 3 to 5, 1918, been harvested and shocked; and that the crop was owned jointly by the plaintiffs. The defendant corporation also owned lands in this valley, and was .at the time engaged in the business of raising cattle, horses and sheep; the plaintiff Flynn conducting like business. About twelve miles from the lands owned by the plaintiff Flynn and contiguous to lands owned by the defendant company, there was a body of "unsurveyed public domain, open for the use of the public in stock grazing; and that on the third day of November, 1918, there were grazing thereon cattle in large number belonging to the plaintiff Flynn, to the defendant company, and to other residents of Blaektail Deer Creek Yalley. Bert Orr was employed by the defendant company and was one of its directors and its manager, and on the date mentioned it is alleged that the defendants, being desirous of excluding from such public domain cattle other than those belonging to the defendant company, drove off the range, where they were pasturing, such cattle to the number
By answer filed, the defendants admitted the corporate existence of the defendant company; that the defendant Bert Orr was in its employ and at the time was its manager and a member of its board of directors. Further it is admitted that the plaintiff Flynn and the defendant company were the owners of large numbers of cattle; that the plaintiff Flynn owned lands adjacent to the lands of the defendant company; and that contiguous to some of the lands owned by the defendant company “there is a body of unsurveyed public land open to the public without pay for grazing stock.” All other allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint are denied. By way of special defense it is alleged that, at the time stated in plaintiffs’ complaint, the plaintiff Flynn and one Pat Laden were holding, in charge of their herders and employees, about 1,200 head of cattle in the valley of the Blaektail Deer Creek, and attempting to pasture them upon about 300 acres of public domain, which was wholly insufficient; that they were so carelessly and negligently herded that they were permitted to break through the fences inclosing the lands of the defendant company, to overrun the same, and feed off the grass grow
It is then alleged by defendants, by way of “full and complete defense”: “That being otherwise unable to protect the fences and lands of the defendant company from the encroachments of said cattle, these defendants, as they had a right to do, gathered up said cattle so being in the charge of said plaintiff and those acting in conjunction with him, and drove the same down the county road through the valley of Blacktail Deer Creek, a distance of some ten miles, and left the same near the premises of the said plaintiff Flynn, and in the vicinity of the premises of said Laden. That the said plaintiff Flynn was present at the time said cattle were started from the lands of the defendant company, and well knew that the same were driven to and adjacent to his own premises in said valley, and that said cattle required the care and attention of their said owners, but knowing such facts said plaintiff Flynn made no effort whatever to care for the said cattle and made no effort to protect his own inclosures or the fences inclosing the lands of his coplaintiff Eutledge. ’ ’
Issue was joined by plaintiffs’ reply, wherein it is admitted that the plaintiff Flynn and Pat Laden were herding cattle on the public domain; that the cattle were being driven by defendants along the county road and were left near the premises of the plaintiff Flynn in a hungry condition. By way of further reply, plaintiffs deny that the fences of the defendant company were broken down by the cattle belonging to the plaintiff Flynn and his associates; that the public lands contiguous to defendants’ lands embrace only 300 acres, and in this connection allege that such lands comprise several thousand acres. The allegations quoted above, set forth in defendants’ answer as paragraphs IV and V, plead by way of full and complete defense, to the effect that the
The case was tried to a jury, and at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case the defendants moved the court for a nonsuit, which was granted, and judgment thereupon entered for the defendants with their costs. The appeal is from the judgment.
But one question is presented decisive of the case, viz.: Did the court err in granting a nonsuit?
Thomas Flynn, one of the plaintiffs, testified on direct examination in part as follows: “I live on Blacktail Deer Creek, in Beaverhead county, Montana, about seven miles south from Dillon. I have lived there over forty years. My place is on both sides of Blacktail Deer Creek. Blacktail Deer Creek runs through about near the center of Blacktail Deer Creek Yalley where I live; I join fences with the Poindexter & Orr Company for about two and one-half or three miles. Blacktail Yalley runs for forty miles from Dillon up and down. It is not very thickly fettled. It is settled pretty well down close to town; Poindexter & Orr Livestock Company owns it for about eighteen or twenty miles of the creek on both sides. On the west side of the creek up until a few years ago since they took up dry farming, the Poindexter & Orr Livestock Company’s possessions would not extend a mile on the west side of the creek any place. I range my cattle—Laden’s and mine—on Blacktail on both sides of the creek. In late years Ernest Selway put a fence above so the cattle can’t get across, but some gets across. There is some on both sides of the creek. Q. The range on the east side of the creek is known as what range? A. It is known as the Blacktail and Sweetwater. Q. Is that the west side? A. The west or southwest side. Q. The range on the west side is known as what? A. It would be the Blacktail and Sage Creek. Q. How extensive is that range on the west side? How far does it extend? A. From the mouth of the canyon
“In 1918, I was engaged in farming, cattle-raising and horse-raising. Along about the 3d of November, 1918, my cattle on the southwest side of Blacktail Deer Creek was ranging from Jake Canyon up to Cottonwood and in the hills back towards the top of the range to Sage Creek. At that tipie there were cattle on that range belonging to Pat Laden, and to Mr. Keenan, and to Orr & Poindexter. About the 3d of November, 1918, there must have been all of 700 head of my cattle on this range. Some of these cattle were on that range all summer. As they kept coming in, I drove a lot of them up and put them on the public range. Some of them come back down as far as the Poindexter & Orr ranch, and Mr. Orr and two of his men took them and put them out on Smallhom Canyon. I went after them and asked them what they did with the cattle, and Mr. Orr told me he put them out on Smallhorn Canyon, and that if they come there at any time in the future he would do the same thing with them. So I went after the cattle and rounded them up and took them back to my ranch, and then I took them up again on the range, and I hired a man by the name of Cozad to herd them back on the range and not let them come down. I had been herding these cattle up there, I guess, about a- month before the 3d of November, 1918. It must have been nearly a month before the 3d of November that I had this talk with Bert Orr that I have told about. He said that the cattle were in his alfalfa. Along the road his fence was down, and he had his gates open there on the place, none of them were closed, and the cattle that come down the road could walk right in there; there was no fence to keep them out, or anything else; they never closed their fence or gates while haying that fall; and I put a man to herd them so that they would not come
“Q. What, if anything, took place on the 3d of November in reference to these cattle? A. I went on up the road on the 3d of November in the afternoon after dinner, on horseback, and I met Mr. Bert Orr and five other of his men with the bunch, probably 1,200 head of cattle, in the mouth of the lane. They had them all rounded up. It is a lane of Orr & Poindexter’s between the two places. He was on the open range just getting into it [the lane] when I asked him that he give me my cattle and I would take charge of them. At the time I found these cattle as I have told you, they were right within half a mile of the public range; they were right on the public highway that runs up and down the valley; he had them on the public highway. I told him that I would take charge of the cattle that were mine, I did not want him driving them, and he told me to step aside; and I got right in front of the cattle and kept them back in the lane, and he told me the second time to step aside; and I rode ahead of the cattle until they come out of the lane off his land, and as soon as they come out of his land on to the dry farmer’s property I demanded them again. I made another demand, and he made the same statement. He gave me the same order, to step aside. He had a gun on the saddle, and I thought the better thing to do was to step aside. There was five men with him and himself. Mr. Orr seemed to be directing the movements of the men there. It would be about twelve miles from my home place to where these cattle were
“On Monday morning the cattle was up in front of Orr & Poindexter’s home ranch. I did not go up to see them there. I went up the road a little ways in my car, and I seen they were there; I supposed they were there. They were in there on the road where the men was working them, and I took my ear and went to town and went over to ITelena for to find out what remedy I had at law. That was the last I seen of the cattle. Where I saw the cattle up there at Poindexter & Orr’s place, it would be two miles from where my fence was opened and the cattle run in, exactly. The cattle were being held stationary at the time I seen them on Monday. There. w,as not a bit of feed for the cattle on the highway from the time I saw them on Sunday until Monday. It was a public road. In 1918 I did not have any crop in on my land myself; I had it leased. Patrick Rutledge and Ray Tash were the lessees. Patrick Rutledge had quite a lot of grain in; he had in somewhere about 150 acres. This grain-field was inclosed by
On cross-examination, he testified, in part: “I don’t know that my fences were down at the home place. The fence was open and torn down. I did not tell the jury that they were down. There was a gate there, and they could go down, to the gate. The fences were tom down by the people who drove the cattle in there. The fences was up prior to that morning when I left. That morning the fence at that corner was not down. I went by it that Monday morning, and the fence was up, and when I come back the main fence was down. There was a couple of panels of the fence down. That is not the place where I used to have bars. When I left for Helena, this fence at the corner was up. It was a three-pole jack fence. I said the following Sunday morning the fence was down; I said that was the last I seen of it until the following Sunday morning. The fence was not down at that corner that morning where the cattle was put in, but it was down when I came back. There was places in the fence along my place when I saw it the last time before going to Helena that was not the best in the world, that is, of the pasture fence. There was places in that fence that they could drive cattle in if they wanted to drive them in. The first dozen panels of the fence along the road was up, from that
“Q. Didn’t he tell you at that time that he was taking these cattle because you were herding them on his leased lands, and that they were always "breaking through the fence, and you were not stopping it? Answer yes or no. A. No. Q. And didn’t you ask him where he was going to take these cattle, and didn’t he tell you that he was going to take them down home to your place? A. He told me he did not care if they went to hell, if you want to know what he told me. He did not say that he was taking these cattle down to my place. He told me to step to one side; that he would take charge of the cattle; that is what he said. That
“Q. You just simply came and delivered this extra number of cattle, whatever there were, over to these people, didn’t you? A. We could not do anything else, but drive them right in there; we could not get by. I knew they had possession of the cattle the last time I seen them driving them down the country. Notwithstanding that, I joined Mr. Laden in taking this other bunch of cattle along until we met this bunch coming down. I went back to make another demand, to see if I could get my cattle and take them with me. At that time I told him I turned the cattle over to him at $90 a head. I would not say what price Mr. Laden demanded for his cattle; I won’t say how much he demanded, but I told him $90 was my price. Mr. Orr told us that the cattle and us could go to hell, if you want to know what he said, when he was through with them, but he was not through with them yet. I will swear positively on oath that I did not know that the cattle on Sunday night, on the 3d of November, were
Patrick Laden testified, in part, on direct examination: “I am related to Tom Flynn, one of the plaintiffs. I have lived in Beaverhead county about twenty-six years. My business has been farming, raising some cattle and a few head of horses. In connection with the alleged injury to some grain belonging to Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Flynn in 1918, I had something to do with cattle then.' I owned some cattle in November, 1918. I owned in the neighborhood of 300 or 350 head, maybe more. I kept the cattle up on the range at the head of Blacktail during the summer months until the cattle were brought in in the fall. During the first part of November, 1918, these cattle were on the range. In order to keep them on the range, we were driving them up and keeping them up in the hills. By ‘we’ I have reference to the man I had there helping Mr. Flynn; I did not stay up there. On November 3, 1918, I was taking up some cattle up to the
“The next time I saw these cattle was the next day, Monday. I saw them on the road about half a mile back of the company ranch, back of the Poindexter & Orr ranch. I think that would be about two and a half miles or three miles from this pasture that they finally got into next to this grain-field. At that time when they were on the road there there was four or five men around the bunch; they were rounding them up in a bunch on the road. I saw them there in the forenoon, probably between 9 and 10 o’clock, around that time. At that time I was going up in the hills. I was in the company’s field. I next saw that bunch of cattle in the afternoon of that day, between 1 and 2 o’clock; it was after dinner. At that time the cattle were in Mr. Flynn’s field. I don’t know how they got in there. The fence was up that morning as I passed by the road. When I saw the cattle in the pasture, the fence was down at the corner where the roads cross each other; there was about two panels of the fence down. I have no personal knowledge as to how it came to be down. There were in the pasture about the same amount of cattle that was in the bunch, I would think from the looks of it. It started to rain a little bit about noon, and about 1 o’clock it started in to snow after that, later in the evening.; it was a. soft snow. It was a small field for a summer pasture along the road where the cattle went in; there was better than 100 acres in it. There was an oat crop being raised on some land close to where that pasture was. There was a fence between that oat-field and that pasture. At the time I saw these cattle in the pasture I did not do anything that Monday afternoon; I went home. I next saw these cattle Tuesday morning right close to Mr. Flynn’s house, standing up around his granary and corrals he had there. I believe it snowed all night that night. Tuesday morning I did not notice the condition of
“In the meantime during that day Pat Rutledge’s man came to engage in the work of getting them out, but he was afoot; he had no horse; and Mrs. Flynn and Vincent Heavy, the boy that was stopping there, came also. We could not do a thing with them.- While we were trying to drive them back, they got worse. They were coming down through the crop, and they were making better headway than we was. They were increasing right along until the whole bunch got in the grain. By Wednesday evening all that was in that bunch was in the grain, about 1,000 or 1,100 head. We worked at them until 6 o’clock that evening. I had three dogs and my saddle-horse, and I was tired, and I went home. I had supper and got the man, and the two of us come back that evening, and I got a fresh horse. When we got back, Rutledge was in the field. We heard
On cross-examination he testified: “November 3 was Sunday. I saw Tom Flynn on the county road the first time that day, right above the company ranch, between the company ranch and Frank Landon’s. Mr. Flynn was traveling towards home. I was driving up some cattle. I had gotten some of these cattle in Flynn’s field and the rest of them on the road, on the road below the company lands. I was taking the cattle up the country. After I met Mr. Flynn, I drove these cattle probably a mile or a mile and a half before I met Mr. Orr with this other bunch. These cattle at that time were about three or three and a half miles, I would think, from the company ranch. When the two herds of cattle were joined, Mr. Flynn did not do anything. We .did not stay there. I went in to see Mr. Bert Orr; he was in the herd. I wanted to see what he was going to do about the cattle. He told me that when he got through cutting his. out he would turn them to hell down the road; and that is the time I told him he had my cattle, and he could take care of them at seventy dollars a head. Then I went home, and Mr, Flynn went with me, and Mr. Bobinack too. Mr.
“Q. So they had to go through from the potato patch— they had to go through the opening in the fence, and then go through the lane up into the dry field, is that right ? A. There was a- short lane; yes, sir. At this opening there was a pair of bars. Q. If they had been up then, there would have been two fields to go through before they could get to the grain-field1? A. There was two fences to go through. On Tuesday morning there was just a fence to the left of where the cattle was. The grain was probably a mile from Mr. Flynn’s house, maybe more; it might be a mile down in
The plaintiff Patrick Rutledge testified on direct examination in part as follows: “In 1918, I had some of Mr. Flynn’s land leased, and I had about 150 acres of that land in oats, besides some alfalfa I had to look after. This whole field of 150 acres of oats was fenced all around. I had a medium amount of a crop; I had what I call a fairly good crop. About the 4th or 5th of November, I had it all stacked, except around about forty acres, I should judge, and that was in shocks. I had just finished cutting it about five days before, and it was not ready to put in stack yet. Figuring up what I threshed and what I sold, it went something around sixty bushel to the acre. The whole field was the same crop; it was the same kind and class of grain in that field. It went forty pounds to the bushel; that is what I paid for threshing it; that is the way it is averaged. About that time other people sold oats for $2.85 a hundred. Q. When, if at all, did you first learn that there were any cattle in this field? A. Well, the evening of the 5th, election day, I came to town to vote, and when I got home that evening it was just getting along towards dark; it was not quite dark, but it was getting along there, and just as I got to the house Mrs. Flynn was there. She come down afoot; she come down. It was about 8 o’clock on Tuesday evening that I first learned of it. Upon learning that, I got my saddle-horse and went right out after them. There was a bunch of cattle coming down on this bench land above the grain, and I started working on them right there, and they kept getting more and more; they kept backing me up, and I worked with them until about half-past 10 o’clock on Tuesday evening and they got too much for me. I could not do anything with them alone. I got my horse pretty well run down, and I went back to the house. I had a hired man there, and he was in bed, so when I asked him if he would get up and help me he did. He come out with me. There was a saddle-horse there, but I did not have
The foregoing synopsis constitutes the gist of all of the plaintiffs’ testimony offered in support of their complaint.
Our statute, section 9317, Bevised Codes of 1921, provides: “An action may be dismissed or a judgment of nonsuit entered in the following eases: * * * (5) By the court, upon motion of defendant, when, upon the trial, the plaintiff fails to prove a sufficient case for the jury.”
Whether there is substantial evidence in support of plain- tiffs’ case is always a question of law for the court. (Brophy v. Idaho Produce & Provision Co., 31 Mont. 279, 78 Pac. 493; Escallier v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 46 Mont. 238, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 468, 127 Pac. 458; Lee v. Stockmen’s Nat. Bank, ante, p. 262, 207 Pac. 623.)
While, on motion for a nonsuit, every fact is deemed to be proved which the evidence tends to establish, and must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (Sprinkle v. Anderson, 57 Mont. 223, 187 Pac. 908), yet it is elementary that “Competent evidence must be produced of all facts necessary to a recovery, upon which the jury can base a reasonable reliable conclusion; nothing can be left to mere
Plaintiffs allege that the cattle were driven and left “in a hungry condition on portion of the land belonging to the plaintiff Flynn, adjacent to the field where the grain was shocked”; but the answer denies this specifically and admits only, by affirmative allegation, that they were by defendants driven down the county road “a distance of some ten miles and left * * * near the premises of the # * * plaintiff Flynn,” and nothing further is established by plaintiffs’ proof. There is a failure of proof as to how the cattle got into plaintiff Flynn’s pasture, and later into the grain-field. This is left entirely in the realm of speculation. There is a complete failure of proof in support of the material allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint in the following particulars: That the cattle were driven by the defendants, without food or pasture; that the fence inclosing the pasture of the plaintiff Flynn was torn down by the defendants; and that the cattle were driven by the defendants upon the plaintiff Flynn’s land adjacent to the field where the grain was shocked. There is nothing in the evidence to show where the cattle were from Sunday afternoon until Monday evening, nor how they got into the grain-field on Wednesday night. The cattle were last seen down the road at least two miles from the plaintiff Flynn’s premises on Monday, and the oat-field was not trespassed upon by them until Wednesday. Evidence is wholly lacking as to how the cattle got iiito Flynn’s pasture on Monday night, although it is clear that, after they were in such pasture, they broke into the inclosed grain-field within the pasture, on Wednesday. It will be noticed that the action is based entirely upon the trespass of these cattle upon plaintiff’s land, occasioned through the tortious acts of the defendants, and no complaint is made on account of moving them from their accustomed range or for rough handling.
“The proximate cause of an injury is that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new, independent cause, produces an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.” (Mize v. Rocky Mt. Bell Tel. Co., 38 Mont. 521, 129 Am. St. Rep. 659, 16 Ann. Cas. 1189, 100 Pac. 971.)
“It is not every negligent act that gives a cause of action; it is only such neglect of duty as bears a direct proximate, and causal relation to the injury.” (Monson v. La France Copper Co., 39 Mont. 50, 133 Am. St. Rep. 549, 101 Pac. 243; Andree v. Anaconda Co., 47 Mont. 554, 133 Pac. 1090; Wallace v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 48 Mont. 427, 138 Pac. 499). And negligence must be shown-—it will not be presumed (Reino v. Montana Mineral Land Co., 38 Mont. 291, 99 Pac. 853; 1 Thompson on Negligence, sec. 45).
“To constitute actionable negligence, there must be not only causal connection between the negligence complained of and the injury suffered, but the connection must be by a natural and unbroken sequence—without intervening efficient cause—so that, but for the negligence of the defendant, the injury would not have occurred.” (22 R. C. L. 113.)
If the injurious act is wanton, the doer of it is liable for all consequences; but there is no essential difference between the measure of liability for willful and negligent torts. In both instances the injury complained of must be a natural and direct result. (22 R. C. L. 123.)
In our opinion, the evidence does not disclose any causal connection between the driving of the cattle by the defend
Affirmed.