*1 P.2d 516 AS- STOCKMEN’S HALL INDIAN FORT Plaintiff-Appellant, INC., SOCIATION,
v. Defendant-Respondent. THORPE, Jr.,
Joseph
No. 8838.
Supreme Idaho. Court of 22, 1960.
June Aug. 4,
Rehearing Denied appel- Blackfoot, for Beebe, &
Anderson lant. *2 Jones, Poca- Ralph Maguire, H.
Hugh C.
tello, respondent.
KNUDSON, Justice.
Appellant, Hall Fort Indian Stockmen’s Association, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Association) incorporated anis nonprofit cooperative association, organized and exist- provisions under the Tit. I.C. Ch. *3 26. principal purposes The of the Associa- provide to are for members grazing its facilities, range rights, range and feeding n management, bulls for breeding services, herders and For purpose riders. ac- of quiring pay funds with which to ex- penses providing of such services its an members annual assessment made is against proportion each member in with the each by business done with member the As- sociation. Each member is assessed accord- to number of cattle he has grazing upon the area by controlled the Association. Respondent been a member of said good in standing for more than prior voluntary ten to his withdrawal May paid on 1957. He had all assess- an- year, year following each December up including the of levied to ments sponsored by nual cattle whiсh was 13, 1956, the Association fall sale March 1955. On mem- members the Association for benefit its against its an assessment levied negotiations bers. between cattle a result of per As head basis $7.25 on the plan the Agency receiving the and the Association facilities sharing the adopted during by fund the Association create a to provided by the Association services pay an- whereby grazing As- it could fees season of During the nually thereby conform to head advance and to 928 its services sociation furnished rеgulation requirements Agency. respondent. by owned of cattle plan adoption exact date such pay assess- Respondent to said refused record, definitely by is not disclosed appel- March ment on levied plan however it is cleаr that the was to be said to recover action this lant commenced inclusive, followed from both 1951 to $6,728 and interest. amounting to assessment awith said accumulating during view of jury, court, without a sitting The district period grazing sufficient funds so that respondent is indebted although thаt found payable paid early in 1956 could be respondent appellant for said assessment year per Agency Re- regulations. as the sum a credit or offset is entitled spondent specific purpose contends favor of judgment in $6,331 and entered plan of the was to create a fund with which respondent in the against appellant and pay grazing He fees in advance. appeal from said This period sum of during further contends that said $397. pursuant plan the annual assess- to said judgment. ments Associаtion were in ex- levied understanding an essential to facts Other necessary defray cess of what an- its parties respective contentions of the expenses operating nual fund was payable expense items that one of are with which the 1956 it the fee annually the Association $20,100.25 amounting was in fact Affairs Bureau of Indian to the must April 3, in advance on 1956. He further Agency) for (hereinafter referred to of having contribut- reason thousand permit to several relative *4 pro-rata to said fund ed share he is not by controlled managed and of land acres to the Association indebted that further Agency. said sought collected here to be assessment the purpose obtaining for the of the levied Association has been Prior to 1956the had ex- operating the or which funds with grazing during November annual fee 462 year,
penses that time on its the Association the the Association handled of monies year, the and accounts. not for permit of grazing Under the terms the chal- assignments of error Appellant’s through Agеncy issued the to the Associa- particulars, the suffi- lenge, in a number of years the from covering 1951 to findings the sustain ciency evidence to of the provided inclusive, it as both follows: Although trial court. of the and conclusions permit is issued with the “This under- discussed assignments are not all of standing that annual collections examined appellant’s we brief, have page on on 1 of shown the schedule here we shall them and record as to each of permit will be credited follows: according to which assignments, discuss the significant. appellant’s most brief are Asso- Credit to Permittee
ciation Grazing as a fee evidence that the Sinking Fund by trial support finding does not 1951 $933.50 period from 1951 during court that 5,193.20 1952 an amount member was assessed each 5,852.44 appellant’s operating ex annual excess 5,852.44 monies pense that sufficient 5,852.44 fund for reserve been accumulated purpose prepaying grazing the 1956 fee. 23,684.02” prior clearly evidence shows Although
The last mentioned evidence does said April 10, 1953, monies accounts prоve particular money sum not Agen- were the Association handled fact was in Association superintendent Agency cy. testi- fund, grazing sinking as a fee it show does fied that the records of his office show that obligated by the Association was con- was creditеd to the As- the sum of support- $933.50 tract create such fund. Also fund sinking for the finding sociation’s such evidence disclosing $5,193.20 the sum year during 1951 and that each year, to said fund for the budgeted likewise credited the Association 10, 1953, April money substantially 1952. On in the in excess of the actual Agency depository belonging to the and that cost thereof the annual assessments $6,127.50 amounting to budgets. made based on the were The fol- to the Association and lowing transferred from tabulation discloses the amount *5 the Associa- graz- the fee, grazing fоr budgeted the grazing at time the 1956 not, the the tion could three each ing charged actually fee paid, on fees were make distribution to, to-wit: referred patronage the reasons that “there basis for Grazing Grazing Excess Fees Year solvent, plaintiff was was no evidence that Budgeted actually charged defray all it sufficient assets $5,853.00 $18,514.00 $24,367.00 opera- year’s expenses following for the 5,950.63 19,404.37 25,355.00 By-laws of the Association tions.” 5,890.50 17,860.26 23,758.76 provide any by the accumulated funds may used directors : Association be its the exact not disclose does The record year but each collected excess amount of patronage “d. For distribution on a 29, 1956, February the on it clear that is basis, provided that distribution such the cash in accumulated Association had shall it not be if make the made shall rec- $40,236.36. The bank in the amount of insolvent, Association and no distribu- April 1956, 4, the also clear that on ord is any year shall be in until the made graz- paid in the advance Association Association has a reserve $20,100.25. amounting expenses sufficient tо the pay the year’s including following operations, who had been a member of Respondent purchase of needed bulls.” standing in Association and had long .the asked if he a director was as also served Appellant’s said contention is without merit. knowledge attending from own knew The balance sheets of the rec- Association’s with meetings, discussions members of ords disclose that net its worth for fiscal participation Directors and his as Board of year February $68,- ending was purpose what of the Assoсia- a member 424.08. Its records also show that as levying an assessment in excess tion was February 29, 1956, it had cash in bank expenses anticipated annual he of the $40,236.36, amounting to budget- that its purpose was to that the accumulate testified expense purchase including ed pay bulls, which herd and money only $33,002.61. with amounted of needed Notwithstanding fee in Appellant assigns as error paragraph has nine directors fact findings trial court’s fact, of the VIII to contradict such called testi- not one as follows: which respondent connection In this mony. testimony Directors, by of the “The a letter corroborated also dated 1957,signed by Secretary Mr. March Owl. Agency, superintendent plaintiff, stated that the 1956 following meeting not written with fees, assessed, were be used Board of Dirеctors Hall of the Fort Association to landowners Indian Association, Stockmen’s which for the 1957 season. advance March, fifty-seven, nineteen, any That the defendant did not receive purpose which was for the called *6 for benefits of said Assoсiation the discussing Thorpe’s indebtedness, if Mr. year 1957.” any, to Association, and it de- was meeting termined at that Mr. that Appellant that the court in erred Thorpe owed no to Associa- monies finding that the letter referred to in said and that letter written Mr. by the finding constitutеs action Board of Thorpe confirming that fact ? Such contention is also Directors. with- letter merit. The referred to is identi- out “Mr. Anderson: renew We ob- our 6, exhibit No. being as defendant’s fied jection, Your Honor. stationery, written on the Association letter respondent, 21, dated March addressed “Judge may Martin: answer. She by Houtz, signed Nettie Secy- and 1957 Lee “A. At the time this letter was writ- pertinent portion The of the letter Treas. ten, there was a Board of Directors follows: meeting authorizing me to write such in statement оur letter “The of Janu- Thorpe. letter to Mr. 23, your ary range 1957 herd and delinquent were for 1956 was in “Mr. Maguire: Your answer then is ‘yes’? error. Fees be will be based on repre- count to cattle be made “A. Yes.” the Fort Indian
sentatives Hall Stockmen’s Association. The 1956 fеes The court respondent: trial found that will be used land owners in pro-rata liable for share advance for 1957 season.” assessment amounting $6,728, 1956 but respondent was entitled to a credit or testimony of Mrs. Houtz disclosing the $6,331. in amount offset for authorization the lеtter as follows: challenges the court’s action in allowing “(At this time Defendant’s Exhibit such credit or offset. In our examination 6, in No. so marked ‘Admitted Evi- record to ascertain the reason for dence’, by Reporter) for such allowance basis computing “Q. (Mr. Mаguire, continuing) thereof, Mrs. the amount we find that trial Houtz, you I ask will if that letter was was convinced that during court the five
465 Bell, 876; 554, Schlieff had been 67 Idaho 186 P.2d member 1956 each preceding v. Bistline, 353, v. 52 Idaho P.2d 15 paid, him an amount assessed, expenses of operating aсtual excess held, uniformly This has Court been Association; had that such excess equity law, findings as well as at purpose of specific accumulated upon judgment of a trial court con made advance; grazing fee 1956 paying the flicting will not where evidence be disturbed equal to the 1956 least amount at an (as in the case at there bar) is substantial been in fact had ($20,100.25) support Reynolds evidence to them. Irr. by the Association and used so 774; Sproat, 315, Dist. Idaho v. 206 P.2d amount computing the purpose. In for said Thompson, v. Checketts 65 Idaho to credit entitled respondent was for which 585; McCarty Sauer, P.2d v. 64 Idaho the evidence from court ascertained trial 742; Gentry, P.2d Maher v. 67 Idaho constituted respondent’s cattle 31.5% 870; Snoderly, 186 P.2d State v. owned of cattle number of the totаl 9; Hagan Clyde, 101 P.2d Idaho v. re- members, grazed which cattle 785, 97 Idaho P.2d 400. dur- ceived the services respond- season, therefore ing the Having found that the conclusion reached sum with the be credited ent should supported *7 the trial court is substantial $6,331 equals which 31.5% competent evidence, finding no error been so accumu- ($20,100.25) which had fee judgment respond- is affirmed. Costs to There sufficient lated and 1956. for ent. conclu- support competent to evidence court that such the trial sion reached TAYLOR, J., SMITH, C. Mc- justified. credit QUADE McFADDEN, JJ., concur. granted will be case any Relief On Petition Rehearing for proof pleading entitle where the equi any legal whether or to relief plaintiff KNUDSON, Justice. particular be and whether
table
relief
Upon
appellant’s-,
consideration of
10-704;
I.C.
not.
Sims v.
prayed for or
§
petition
rehearing
for
have
we
concluded
109,
242;
257 P.2d
Ander
Purcell,
Idaho
employed
that the trial court
an erroneous
351;
Whipple,
Idaho
227 P.2d
v.
son
determining
method
the amount of credit
Stewart, 69
Idaho
207 P.2d
Addy v.
respondent
or off-set to which
is entitled..
Sidney Mining
498;
Company,
v.
Stivers
Respondent’s contribution to the accumu
795;
reserve,
208 P.2d
Swanstrom
or sinking
Idaho
fund,
lated
to be al~
trict court to receive respondent con- amount
establish the payment of assess-
tributed, through the both years 1951 to 1955 during the
ments fund, reserve, sinking or
inclusive, during said
which appellant enabling purpose of
for the Affairs the Indian Bureau of
pay the in advance
grazing be judgment shall entitled to respondent equal in an amount
against respond- between the total of
the difference reserve, to said or sink- contributions
ent’s fund, $6,728. sum of rehearing August denied
Petition *8 allowed.
No costs
TAYLOR, J., SMITH, C. Mc- McFADDEN, JJ., concur.
QUADE