Title: WYO FARM MUTUAL INS v MONDALE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12188 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 WYOMING FARM BUREAU M U T U A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, W A L T E R E. MONDALE , R A L P H M A R S H A L L BEATTY , JOHN M. BEATTY, and M Y R T Z E M. BEATTY, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Walter E . Mondale argued, Lewistown, Montana. For Respondent: Robert L. Johnson and William Berger, Lewistown, Montana. William Berger argued, Lewistown, Montana. Submitted: January 12, 1972 Decided :a& I 7 ffz Filed :JAM 1 1972 PER CURIAM: This appeal has been taken by one of t h e defendants, Walter E. Mondale, on h i s own behalf. Mondale then f i l e d i n t h i s Court a motion t o s t a y execution on t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment f o r t h e reason, he contended, i f t h e execution be n o t stayed h i s appeal may become moot, This motion was presented ex p a r t e and w e issued an order t o show cause, a l s o temporarily staying execution on t h e judgment. The plaintiff-respondent insurance c a r r i e r f i l e d a motion t o quash t h e order to show cause and a l s o t o quash t h e s t a y of execution, The matters were f u l l y argued by counsel on t h e r e t u r n day of t h e order to show cause, It appeared from t h e f i l e s and from t h e argument t h a t judgment w a s entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a g a i n s t a l l defendants. Appealing defendant Mondale applied t o t h e district c o u r t f o r an order staying execution of t h e judgment and received such an order as t o him. Execution was issued upon t h e judgment and levy made by t h e s h e r i f f upon t h e bank accounts of t h e o t h e r defend- a n t s . This brings i n t o focus t h e contention of Mondale t h a t i f t h e judgment is s a t i s f i e d it might cause h i s appeal t o become moot, The nonappealing defendants have n o t protested t h e levy upon t h e i r property t o s a t i s f y t h e judgment and have requested counsel for t h e insurance carrier t o conclude t h e matter. The plaintiff-respondent contends t h a t t h i s Court has no j u r i s d i c - t i o n over t h e nonappealing defendants and therefolrMondale should n o t be a b l e to apply for o r secure a s t a y of execution as to them, M r . Chief J u s t i c e Brantly i n MacGinniss v , B. & M.C.C. & S.M. Co., 29 Mont. 428, where a somewhat similar situation existed in that it was contended that the district court had no jurisdiction over a certain corporation because it had never been served with process nor appeared in the action, commented in his opinion that it was not necessary to consider that ques- tion because if the district court had no jurisdiction over the corporation by service of process, that corporation was not aggrieved by the order. Further, if the court had jurisdiction, and the corporation was aggrieved by the order, it took no ap- peal, and can obtain no relief from this Court, except insofar as the relief granted to the appealing defendants may incidentally affect its rights. This same principle was cited by Mr. Justice Holloway in his opinion in American Surety Co. of N.Y. v. Kartowitz, 59 Mont. 1, 195 P. 99. Thus it appears that this Court should grant no relief to nonappealing defendants, and an appealing defendant cannot seek relief on their behalf. In this situation the contention of the plaintiff-respondent is correct and its motions to quash the order to show cause and the stay of execution of the judgment insofar as the nonappealing defendants are concerned should be sustained. It is so ordered, and our order to show cause is hereby quashed, the stay of execution is likewise quashed and appellant Mondale's motion is denied. DATED this 17th day of January, 1972.