Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Dobson v. Masonite Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJudgment notwithstanding the verdictJury factfindingContract interpretationStatute of FraudsRule 50(b)JNOVcontract interpretation

Facts

Masonite wanted oak and other unwanted trees removed from about 9,200 acres of Mississippi land, and Dobson orally agreed to conduct the cutting operations. Under the agreement, Dobson would cut all oak, control the operation and the cut timber, sell as much of the timber as he could, and pay Masonite a set amount per thousand log feet of oak actually sold while keeping any excess as compensation. Dobson spent substantial sums preparing, found buyers, and cleared 4,000 acres before Masonite unilaterally terminated the arrangement in December 1963. Dobson sued for the net profits he claimed he would have earned if allowed to complete the work, while Masonite argued the agreement was an oral sale of standing timber barred by the Mississippi Statute of Frauds.

Issue

Whether the district court could treat the parties' oral agreement as, as a matter of law, a sale of standing timber barred by the Statute of Frauds, or whether the nature of the agreement was a factual question for the jury. More specifically, the issue was whether substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the contract was one for services rather than a sale of timber.

Rule

Determining what the parties meant by the terms of their agreement is a question of fact. When the meaning and type of contract are uncertain and the record contains evidence that would authorize the jury's conclusion, the issue is for the jury and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is improper.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Jackson, Mississippi, Pine Hollow Estates orally arranged with Luis Navarro to clear scrub cedar from a large tract slated for home construction. Navarro would do all cutting, decide what material could be resold, remit a fixed amount per truckload actually sold to Pine Hollow, and keep any excess; after a jury found the deal was for land-clearing services, the trial judge concluded it was really a sale of timber and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Pine Hollow.

Under the governing doctrine, which is the strongest argument for reversing the judgment notwithstanding the verdict?

Explanation. The majority held that when the controversy is over what type of contract the parties made, that interpretation is a question of fact. If the record contains substantial evidence supporting the jury's finding, Rule 50(b) relief is improper because the judge may not invade the jury's factfinding province by recharacterizing the agreement.