*1 Burt, supra; Ames Van Houten v.
Ames,
(Alaska 1971) (per
curiam). Since the 1971 reviewable, since the 1973 se, per challenged is not based thereon appeal judg both follows that ments must be dismissed. respondent. appeal is Costs to dismissed.
SHEPARD, DONALDSON, J., and C. BAKES, McQUADE JJ., concur. PROPERTIES, INC., WARM SPRINGS Inc., Village, International d/b/a Plaintiff-Appellant, VILLA, INC., ANDORA Defendant- Respondent.
No. 11444. Supreme Court Idaho.
Sept. 26, 1974. Walker, Lloyd Falls, plain- Twin J.
tiff-appellant. Benjamin Clair, Willis B. of St. St. Clair, Hiller Benjamin, & Ketchum and Falls, defendant-respondent. McFADDEN, Justice. (plain- Inc.
tiff-appellant)
instituted this action
(defendant-respondent)
seeking
special damages
*2
summary judg-
Andora
moved for
$60,000
damages
the conversion
Villa
general
ment,
by
af-
supporting the motion
various
of
enrich-
money
of
the basis
on
shareholders,
fidavits of its officers and
ment.
Butler,
man-
deposition
and the
Bill
the
of
complaint,
its
In the first count of
Corporation.
ager
Butler Brothers
of
(herein
Inc.
re-
Warm
Springs
filed counter affidavits.
Warm
that
Springs), alleged
ferred to as Warm
Andora
granted
court
defendant
trial
(herein
it and Andora
des-
both
summary
judgment
motion for
Villa’s
ignated
Villa), by separate and in-
Andora
appeal
this
was taken.
agreements with Butler Brothers
dividual
appeal
Springs on this
Warm
contends
Corporation
of
contracted for construction
granting
in
that
the trial court erred
projects;
independent
their
condominium
summary
in
motion for
two as-
projects
to be fi-
that each of these
was
pects.
Springs first asserts that
Warm
by
by progress payments
to
nanced
be
money
this is
action for
of
restitution
Springs
or
Andora Villa as
Warm
had
received on the basis of the doc-
respective
progressed on the
condo-
work
of
trine
enrichment. Warm
projects;
September
minium
that between
Springs
additionally
then
that
contends
1, 1971,
year
and the end of that
Warm
held
Andora Villa should be
liable for con-
Springs paid over
to Butler Broth-
Springs property,
version of the Warm
i.
understanding
ers with the
that the funds
payments
e. cash
it made
Butler
Broth-
were
purpose
to be used for the
of
sole
ers,
pay
used
off
was
obli-
paying expenses already
on
incurred
gations already incurred on the Andora
Springs condominium;
Warm
during
properties. These contentions will be dis-
period
the same
work on
Andora
Villa
cussed in inverse order.
project
continued,
though
even
Andora
payments
Villa failed
to Butler
I Conversion
Springs
Brothers. Warm
alleged
also
It
is the conclusion of the court
this
paid by
count that funds
it to Butler
appellant’s
there is no merit to the
second
Brothers
misappropriated
were
and allocat-
Andora
contention that
Villa could be held
expenses
ed
already
on
incurred
liable
on
basis of conversion of the
condominium;
that Andora
moneys paid by
funds
Springs
or
Warm
accepted
Villa
the benefit of these funds at
dep-
Brothers. From
affidavits
expense
Springs.
Warm
Warm
appears
ositions in the record it
that Butler
Springs
alleged
also
upon
moneys
Brothers
receipt
any
unjustly enriched
general
spe-
principals
of the
for whom it was con-
damage
cial
Springs.
of Warm
structing buildings1 placed
the funds
its
In the
complaint,
second count of the
general checking account. The record also
Springs adopted portions
its first
expenses
paid by
discloses that
were
count
alleged
and further
that Andora Vil-
general
Brothers from this
fund without
through
la
agents
knowledge
had actual
contract,
regard
particular
e.,
to the
i.
paid by
funds
to But- money paid
project
on one
was used to
ler Brothers
being
complete
were
used to
for costs of labor and material without re-
construction of the
gard
Andora Villa condo-
to the
source
such funds.
minium;
willfully
that Andora Villa
ac-
171, 179,
In
Koppel,
Klam v.
cepted
period
this
throughout
benefit
(1941),
118 P.2d
this
defined
question
“conversion” as
because it
unable
to furnish
**
*
the needed
completion
funds for
of its own
any distinct act of dominion
project.
wrongfully
per-
exerted over another’s
year
During
1.
Butler Brothers
tions or individuals for
construction of
residences,
only
parties
was the
contractor
dominiums or
action,
corpora-
but for some six other
property
moneys paid
sonal
denial or inconsistent
used
therein,
Springs,
reserves,
rights
including
with his
as a tortious
Federal Tax
such
chattels,
payroll
meet
taking
or
current
of the Andora
another’s
job.
assumption
wrongful exercise
of au- Villa
or
thority, personally
by procurement,
Although affidavits of officers of An-
*3
goods, depriving
over another’s
him of
deny any knowledge
dora Villa
of internal
possession,
in-
permanently
or for an
Brothers,
affairs of Butler
of fact
issues
definite time.”
remain unresolved as to whether Andora
encouraged
officers
Villa
or counselled
misap
Normally conversion for
paid
moneys
by
Brothers
use
propriation
money
it
of
does not lie unless
Springs
payment
obligations
Warm
of
specific
can be described
identified as a
or
Springs project
incurred on the
Warm
Cavin,
Cal.App.2d
chattel.
154
Shahood v.
paid
the amount
funds of
from
Warm
745,
Am.Jur.,
(1957);
Mr. his affidavit that he could continue on the Andora Villa ler condo- stated minium, phone obligated of Andora Villa’s Andora Villa became by to one talked that Butler sums under the officer for such officers and advised Restitution, keep Restatement, provisions Brothers had have some 120, supra. be- in this open; and that There is merit job the Andora Villa § Andora, Butler tention. promises made cause of 327, person enti- Allphin, will render to
In Hixon 333- one equity which in 334, quot- tled thereto that this court (1955), conscience, belongs to the latter. good ed from various decisions as follows: > * * * Gattavara, 34 Bill v. Wash.2d “ ‘The a quasi essence of contractual 645, pages P.2d at 459-460. obligation lies the fact the de- Restatement, ‘Going Law of to the fendant has received a benefit which Restitution, general we statements find inequitable would be him to retain. supporting judgment. the instant Sec. clearly pointed This was out Lord person “A who has been en- recognizing Mansfield in the first case expense riched at the is re- another quasi the doctrine of “If contracts. quired to make restitution to other.” defendant,” said, he “be an obliga- under implies Comment under above c. tion, justice, from the ties of natural *4 person where from a receives a benefit refund, debt, implies the gives law a and another he is liable to therefor if the action, equity this in the founded the receipt circumstances of its retention plaintiff’s case, were, upon it a as con- are such as the is between two it {‘quasi tract ex contractu’ as the Roman ’ * * * unjust * * for * him to retain it. expresses it). law This kind Scott, Duffy 142, v. 235 N.W. Wis. equitable to action recover back mon- 273, 276, at page See A.L.R. 487. ey, ought justice in kept, not to be also, Vial, Pa.Super. Lauffer is very beneficial and therefore much ” 342, * 777, * * page A.2d at 779.” encouraged. McShane Quillin, 542, 547-548, pages at is It the conclusion of this court 554, page 277 P. at 559. e., that the (i. issue role played of fact the “ ‘ * * * It not necessary is in Andora Villa officers in having Butler or- der obligation apply to create an obligations to resti- compensate, moneys paid by tution or to party is ma Springs) enriched terial should this action. Should have been guilty Springs prevail tortious or resolution of fraudulent act. this issue question he, trial, at The a a is: Did basis would be to the detri- established else, ment of the trial something employ powers someone court to its equity obtain of value to in application unjust which he was the doctrine of en not entitled? 99, See 46 Restitution, richment. Restatement Restitution and Un- § Am.Jur. just supra. Enrichment. For this reason it is the con Enrichment. ignation for the contracts.” “unjust enrichment” [******] ‘ * * * the terms See “Quasi older doctrine of also, are contracts” are not 66 C.J. “restitution” modern des- Unjust “quasi versed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. judgment. clusion of erred The in granting Costs to court of the trial the motion for appellants. trial court summary is re- true obligations contracts but are created
by the law when or property has and McQUADE, DONALDSON JJ., placed person’s possession, been in one concur.
under such in equity circumstances that BAKES, (concurring part good conscience, ought he not to re- Justice dissenting in part) : tain Royal Indemnity it. Co. v. Sol Ct., [Inc.], City Lustbader 26 N.Y.S.2d I dissent from majority’s conclusion 328; also, Phrases, see 35 Words and plaintiff that the has shown a claim for re- Perm.Ed., page Thus, 621. the sub- lief for unjust enrichment the de- stance an action unjust However, enrich- fendant Andora Villa. I do con- promise, ment law, lies in implied a cur that the matter be remanded contested, permit plaintiff Although court in trial order to there was attempt complaint allege to amend his to the effect that the offi- some evidence upon theory prevailed a claim for of tortious relief on cers of Andora Villa interference with advances from contract. reasons Brothers to seek Inc., representing that are as follows: pay Warm the funds would be used to Regarding the issue of enrich- bills, using money to and then ment, majority opinion while the does not remand, pay the bills of Andora On Villa. point out, the defendant Andora Villa opportuni- plaintiff given should be also victim of the failure of Butler complaint attempt ty to amend his to al- relating Brothers to of the bills all lege relief, such a claim for and then have its all of projects, construction when theory tested a'new motion for complete, the construction the defend- summary judgment, or in a if trial only ant Andora full disputed. facts are materially price tract but addi- pay approximately tion had to SHEPARD, Chief (dissenting): Justice more in order to cover the costs of materi- opinion I concur in the of Mr. Justice prevent als and labor furnished in order to plaintiffs BAKES to the extent that have liens being property. filed on its Un- not shown a claim for relief for en- circumstances, der these how then can it be however, disagree, richment. I his with *5 stated that the defendant Andora conclusion plaintiffs might be able to unjustly enriched? establish a claim for relief on based tor- is not the The test enrichment tious interference with contract. Under by plaintiff, extent of but loss any theory I believe the record sustains the been amount which the defendant has action of the trial in entering sum- Forest unjustly enriched. Continental mary judgment for the defendant. Products, Co., Supply Inc. v. Chandler Under case, the facts of this since the defendant
actually an en- sustained a loss rather than dealings richment as a with result of un- no cause of action for just enrichment would lie
plaintiff P.2d argue To have Villa would al., Dean POLLARD et Plaintiffs- conduct, inequitable lost but for its more Respondents, enriched, has and therefore was been the basis successful claims never WEST, al., INC., corporation, LAND et a I have been enrichment that Defendants-Appellants. discover, majority cites no able to and the No. 11357. authority proposition. for this The trial Supreme Court of Idaho. granting summary court was correct Sept. 27, 1974. on issue. for the defendant
However, allegations in there are certain plaintiff’s alleged set complaint, facts plaintiff which in the affidavits
out es- able to suggest plaintiff might be against Andora a cause action tablish with con- interference Villa for tortious Har- v. International Barlow tract. See Co., P.2d vester