*1 PETERSON, W. Leslie
Plaintiff-Respondent, WAREHOUSES, INC., a
CONIDA Corporation,
Connecticut
Defendant-Appellant. Court of Idaho.
Supreme
Feb. 1978. Slavin, Stephan, Slavin & Ea-
Daniel A. Falls, ton, defendant-appellant. for Twin Robertson, Larson, Daly Parry, Bert Larson, Falls, plaintiff-respon- Twin dent.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice. fol- judgment This is an from a plaintiff-re- lowing trial entered favor W. Peterson and spondent Leslie Warehouses, Inc., defendant-appel- portion of a bean lant, the value of a *2 crop grown property. on Peterson It of 60 percent was by contributed the Grimms provisions delivered to Conida under the percent by and 40 Peterson. In return therefor, agreement an between Conida and third- would be shared on the same party percent defendants Grimms who were tenant the Grimms and 40 percent to Peterson. farmers on Peterson We af- property.
firm. In the meantime and without the knowl- edge Peterson, the Grimms
Essentially questions presented two are and Conida entered into an agreement whereunder for decision. The first is whether an ear- Grimms would receive seed beans which agreement nest money for the purchase of they plant would and the bean there- the Peterson farm vested type some of title from would be delivered to Conida at the in the Grimms which validated the transfer per rate of hundredweight. $10 At of the otherwise landlord’s share of the time of agreement, that Jim Grimm told of beans to presented Conida. Also is the he, Grimm, the Conida field man that was question of whether in the absence of any buying the property. During Peterson that Grimms, they land title in the nevertheless negotiation representative the Conida made were able to transfer title to Peterson’s no further inquiry regarding the terms of crop. share of the bean property acquisition nor did he see the September 6, 1972, On the Grimms and money earnest agreement. There is Peterson an money agree- entered earnest dication representative that the Conida ment contemplating purchase any Peterson, made effort to contact make Peterson property. The Grimms made a any inquiry regarding the real property $4,000 money earnest payment and the total transaction or Grimm’s authority to sell the $280,000, purchase price agreed but no terms of the payment thereof were set During September the middle of agreement forth. That also provi- made no Grimms harvested and delivered the bean taxes, regard rents, insurance, sion in crop to Conida and advised Conida of the interest, possession date of or broker’s com- crop sharing Peterson-Grimm 60-40 agree- mission. Obtention of an FHA loan was ment. Peterson did not become aware of clearly contemplated and was a condition of agreement the Grimm-Conida until Decem- ber 1973 when Peterson and the Grimms During October or November of settling were their account. In January Peterson and Jim Grimm discussed the fi- 1974, Conida sent rep- Peterson two checks agreement nancing which was ex- resenting what Conida claimed to be the pected from Farmers Home Administration e., Peterson interest crop, bean /. and since Grimm’s lease on other property percent per hundredweight. $10 One expired, agreed it was that Grimm “pink” check was for beans and the second would then possession take of the Peterson (small beans). “bonus” beans white Pe- property. possession, Grimm did take terson cashed the check for the bonus did the fall work expended on the farm and beans, but returned the pink check for the improvements. During certain monies in request beans to Conida with a that Conida to occupy 1973 the Grimms continued receipt issue a pink warehouse the Peterson farm and some time operate beans. requested Conida did not issue the during April, or June May the Grimms and receipt 9, 1974, May warehouse and on Pe- Peterson, they after determined that again requesting terson wrote Conida money forthcoming, ter- FHA would not Condia sell the pink Peterson share of the agreement money minated the earnest price beans at the then current market $4,000 paid thereon was returned to the price the market was less per than $50 Grimms. The Grimms and Peterson then hundredweight, Conida was to first consult entered into rental for the with attorney. Peterson’s did Conida Peterson farm wherein the and other comply request with Peterson’s and did not expenses farm were to be shared on a basis pink sell the beans. brought argues to recover the not Appellant action
Peterson
withstanding
relation
crop. Conida
the landlord-tenant
of the bean
of his share
value
ship between Grimm and Peterson and the
complaint
third-party
filed a
answered
Grimm, Grimm was
any
lack of
land title in
for indemnification
the Grimms
*3
nevertheless able to contract with Conida
the
suffer in
might
loss Conida
whatever
share of
disposition
the
of Peterson’s
trial,
Following
judgment
action.
Peterson
by the
recognized
the bean
As
trial
and
in favor of Peterson
rendered
was
directly contrary
is
to the
theory
such
of
the
value
market
against
expressed
law of this state as
Washburn-
court held
beans. The trial
pink
Peterson’s
727,
v.
Wilson Seed Co.
54 Idaho
35
cashing
the bonus beans
of
Peterson’s
There,
here,
(1934).
“Appellant
P.2d 990
re-
sale and Peterson’s
a
check constituted
Smith,
upon
Ferry
relies
D. M.
and Co. v.
was
was
No
denied.
covery thereon
67,
1066,
of
209 P.
which on the face
portion
.judgment
of the
from that
taken
unquestionably
squarely
and
supports
The trial
appeal.
exists on
no issue
and
position.
being
The
a
action there
between
Conida’s claim
denied
court further
basing
crop
his claim on a
share
Grimms for
third-party defendant
the
lease,
here,
respondent
does
and the seed
was taken
Although appeal
demnification.
company”
by
on a contract declared
the
was
judgment,
portion
of
from that
court to be one of the bailment with the
and dismissed.
settled
729,
at
35 P.2d
990-91.
lessee. 54 Idaho
at
in Washburn-Wilson held that D.
The Court
argues that
first
Appellant Conida
Co., supra,
&
had been overruled
of the earnest
of the execution
by virtue
lease
crop
and that under a
share
the land
and
Peterson
agreement between
money
crop
tenant are cotenants in the
lord and
“
*
* *
the farm
Grimms,
equitable title
one tenant
in common
they therefore
the Grimms
passed
of the share or
any way dispose
not
binding
a
enter into
capacity to
any
of
other cotenant without such
interest
* *
of
disposition
for the
contract
54 Ida
cotenant’s consent
other
held to the
court
The trial
thereon.
grown
at 991.
ho
35 P.2d
motion
on the
in its decision
contrary
a landlord-tenant
In Washburn-Wilson
That
findings and conclusions.
amend
crop sharing
a
relationship existed on
basis.
sup
clearly
is
court
of the trial
holding
company
with a seed
The tenant contracted
money
The earnest
by the record.
ported
seed,
crop
with the
furnishing of
for the
unsettled, ambigu
sowas
itself
compa-
be delivered
thereon to
and con
necessary
terms
devoid
ous and
the seed com-
A
between
ny.
dispute arose
con
and it
to be unenforceable
ditions
ownership
as to the
pany and the landlord
Math
rights on the Grimms. See
no
ferred
as deter-
landlord’s share
Harris,
P.2d 754
96 Idaho
eson v.
by
mined
the landlord-tenant
Conrad,
221, 526
v.
96 Idaho
(1975);
“Respondent
Luke
The Court held
[landlord]
any crops
v.
to be
(1974);
being
H. Leavell
a co-owner
C.
herein
P.2d 181
cotenant,
the les-
his
Assocs., Inc.,
grown upon
414 P.2d
Grafe &
appellant
see,
no contract with
could made
held that
(1966). The trial court
affecting his title
such
company]
ear
into the
[seed
entered
and Peterson
Grimms
* *
interest
one-third
contingency
a
agreement on
money
nest
e.,
financing for
basis,
desired
i.
Hence, we
that Washburn-Wil-
determine
unavailable,
the Grimms
the Grimms
the case at bar and
all fours with
son is on
basis
the farm on
tenant
occupy
would
invi-
controlling.
appellant’s
We decline
fi
Since
crop arrangement.
Ap-
share
with a
Washburn-Wilson.
to overrule
tation
available,
become
has
that Washburn-Wilson
nancing
pellant argues
did
by
on a
Kent
farm as tenants
at least modified
occupied the
been overruled or
Grimms
57,
The decision court was correct object the new can be reduced to the mate- *4 respects in all and is affirmed. to made, Costs rials of it belongs which was it to the respondents. material; owner not, belongs it to ” person the who made it.’ 6.2§ at 50. DONALDSON, JJ., McFADDEN and More recently, courts have looked only not concur. at changes in the character of the property, but also at proportionate contributions
BAKES, J., concurs in result. of labor and material to the value of the BAKES, Justice, concurring specially: product. resultant See id. at 51. I do not see how the Court can conclude Applying these tests to the bailment that Washburn-Wilson Seed farmer, seeds to a it apparent is that (1934), P.2d 990 is control- seed company should not retain title to the overruling without ling Campbell, Kent v. resultant crop cannot be reduced The theo- to the same grew, seeds from which it ry compa- in Kent was that the bailor seed ordinarily will infinitely be worth more contract, ny, by its bailment had retained than were the seeds. The farmer’s title to the it provided beans that to the water, produces a prod- fertilizer and labor bailee-farmer to crops produced uct so transformed enhanced that the beans a from result of the bailee’s title to the crop resultant should to belong farming efforts. Under this theory, the farmer. company, course, The seed agreement between the bailee and land- would retain rights against contractual lord for the crop grown division of in could However, farmer. rights these do not give any way away compa- take the bailor-seed company any seed claim to ny’s title. Unless the Kent reasoning is itself, particularly the rights aof to competing accommodate modified claims landlord, sharecrop proprietary whose inter- way is no that a sharecrop there est concurrently would arise with that of subject can obtain title to a that is his farmer-tenant. bailment such as that a majority in this case. What the has volved J., BISTLINE, concurs. excep- is create a policy done here such BISTLINE, Justice, specially concurring. tion to the Kent rule in favor of landlords (and perhaps subsequent litigation in other parties Both have treated Grimms- claimants) actually expressly lien without “bailment,” Conida contract as a both in the saying so. trial in we court and this Court where have view, my theory accepted properly the bailment
In
decided the
on the theories
rejected by
Court,
in
should be
this
on which
It
Kent
the action was tried.
should
noted, however,
in
merely sidestepped
not
as we have done
the word “bailment”
agree
case. I
with Justice Bistline that
does not
appear
this
written
concept
Equally missing
of bailment be-
stretching
is
are the words “bailee” and
Nonetheless,
breaking
that one
“bailor.”
yond
point
purported
assert
Conida
plant them contract
all
deliver beans to another to
on the basis that
title to
may
Chief Justice Holt
from
classified the different
grew
all the
which
and to
beans
Conida,
bailments, and,
in
Grimms
among
remained
with
kinds of
other
the same
per hundredweight
things,
$1.00
to be docked
said: “The fifth
is when
sort
graded
percentage
below
specific
each
goods or chattels are delivered to be
a
of U.S.
minimum
something
carried or
is to be done about
them for a
paid by
reward to be
agreeing
I have little trouble in
While
person who
delivers them to
bailee
sale,
it does
my
mind
this is not a
thing
who is to do the
about them.” D.
is a bailment.
necessarily follow that it
calling
a bail-
Forquer,
& Co. v.
61 Mont.
indulge in the fiction of
To
very
does
is not a bailment
P. at 195.
that which
ment
as a science.
jurisprudence
promote
little
so,
Even
the Montana
evident
therefore,
affirmance,
should
My vote for
ground
it was on tenuous
realization that
any conviction
implying
not be construed
applying
century English
18th
law of com-
Grimms
arrangement between
that the
contracts,
mon carriers to Montana
Obviously, once
awas
bailment.
quickly added:
im-
planted,
were
it was
seed beans
those
Holt,
It
be that Chief Justice
in thus
the Grimms to return
possible for
law,
the common
did not
expounding
which,
view,
always
goods,”
my
“bailed
contemplation a seed contract of
have in
Leasing
right
bailee.
Industrial
*5
us,
one before
but it
the character of the
574,
Thomason,
P.2d
Corp. v.
532
law,
malleability of the common
its
is the
(1974).
916
conditions,
changed
that is
adaptability to
referring
of
to seed con
The tradition
distinguishing
characteristic
and
appears
origi
to have
tracts as “bailments”
virtue,
may be
and it
asserted
greatest
Ferry
the case D. M.
&
nated in Idaho in
of
law
with confidence that
the modern
of
Smith,
67,
Idaho
lease entitled one-half of v. In Co. Washburn-Wilson Seed at land, participated and who on his 727, (1934), the Court with the all in the lessee-bailee’s contract uphold validity continued to Idaho’s concluding, company. so the Idaho In Ferry Co. bailment doctrine as still “defin- a Mon Supreme heavily upon relied Court ing rights company between the seed earlier, case, just year decided one tana the party contracting and with it.” The involving company, same seed D. only case was overruled so far as Ferry Co. 336, 202 Forquer, v. 61 P. Mont. Ferry Co. that a is co-own- necessary hold 193, (1921). Mon 642 It was the 29 A.L.R. grown er any crops upon be his con which first observed such a tana court (his lessee), his bailment and that cotenant bailment; being one founded in tract as no, contract or can “make no contract with line, merely into without Idaho court fell company] affecting land- [the [the analysis independent making any title to such one-third interest.”1 lord’s] the les legal which existed between status I submit that is unrealistic to continue The Montana company. the seed see and bean, which indulge the fiction that a out of lan holding was somehow molded irretrievably planted ground, Bernard, v. 2 Ld. Coggs found in guage very whose existence as a bean ceases 107, Eng. Reprint, Eng. 5 Raym. subject wherein, of a (1702), plant, the Mon turns into be Rul. Cas. observed, bailment, entitling supplier of the bean tana court case, intervening Mtg. Walker, doctrine was derived from the Devereaux 1. This Co. 268 P. 37 produced the beans to claim all from that parties
plant. essentially have entered venture, joint with company
into a the seed beans, grower, the seed
supplying Grimms, supplying
here the land in planted, the beans may together
which all goes
with the labor which into planting, harvesting,
cultivating, hauling
warehouse. The Idaho in our case, quoting
Co. from the Montana Fer- case,
ry right came close to the answer spoke
where it share pro- “a of the net
ceeds adventure.” 36 Idaho at grower’s
209 P. 1067. Here the share agreed upon per at much hundred-
weight, which seems be what he towas
receive for services rendered in the adven-
ture, not, by any stretch of imagi-
nation, compensation storing apart
beans one inch in rows in the ground.
575 P.2d ex
The STATE rel. Carl C.
MOORE, Lloyd Roy F. Barron I.
Stroschein, Highway Idaho Board of Di
rectors, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Bastian, BASTIAN and
Arlon Una wife,
husband and
Defendants-Respondents, Inc.,
Albertson’s, and Travelers Insurance
Company, Defendants.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Feb. 1978.