Title: KINJERSKI v LAMEY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 JOHN KINJERSKI , Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- FRITZ LAYEY, individually, et al., Defendants and Respondents, -vs- ANNA KINJERSKI, ~hird Party Defendant and Appellant. .1 from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Robert Holter, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Morrison, Jonkel, Kemmis & Rossbach, Missoula, Montana For Respondents: Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana Submitted on Briefs: August 13, 1981 Decided: OCT 2 9 I#n Filed: M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . John K i n j e r s k i b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n May of 1978 to r e c o v e r 49 head of cows purchased from d e f e n d a n t s as evidenced by a w r i t t e n b i l l of sale. Following a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s , p l a i n t i f f appealed to t h i s Court and we remanded f o r new t r i a l . K i n j e r s k i v. Lamey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . 604 P.2d 782, 36 St.Rep. 2316. A new t r i a l w a s h e l d on October 21, 1980 and judgment on t h e v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f , who now a p p e a l s from t h e judgment and t h e d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l . F r i t z Lamey was t h e p r e s i d e n t of P h i l l i p s Creek Ranch, I n c . , a cattle r a n c h i n g o p e r a t i o n n e a r Eureka, Montana. On O c t o b e r 3 , 1967, K i n j e r s k i and Lamey executed a w r i t t e n b i l l of sale f o r 1 3 1 head of Hereford cattle f o r $59,000. The cattle were f u r t h e r s p e c i f i e d to be 80 cows, 3 1 b u l l s and 20 c a l v e s . It is uncon- t e s t e d t h a t t h e b u l l s , t h e c a l v e s , and 3 1 o f t h e 80 cows were d e l i v e r e d to K i n j e r s k i . It is t h e f a t e of t h e 49 remaining cows which is i n d i s p u t e . S h o r t l y after t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e b i l l of sale, K i n j e r s k i and Lamey became b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r s i n a new c o r p o r a t i o n known as K & L L i v e s t o c k , I n c . f o r t h e purpose of r a i s i n g and s e l l i n g r e g i s t e r e d Hereford cattle. The new c o r p o r a t i o n purchased c a t t l e from both t h e P h i l l i p s Creek Ranch and K i n j e r s k i . During t h e s h o r t l i f e of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , c a t t l e belonging to K i n j e r s k i , Lamey, P h i l l i p s Creek Ranch and K & L L i v e s t o c k were commingled and maintained t o g e t h e r on P h i l l i p s Creek Ranch p r o p e r t y . I n A p r i l , 1978, a f t e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of K & L L i v e s t o c k , I n c . , K i n j e r s k i made demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n of 49 o f t h e cows r e f e r r e d to i n t h e b i l l of sale. Lamey r e f u s e d , s t a t i n g t h a t he d i d n o t have p o s s e s s i o n of t h e cows. T h i s l a w s u i t r e s u l t e d . The f i r s t t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n a v e r d i c t and judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s , b u t upon a p p e a l we remanded f o r a new t r i a l based on v i o l a t i o n s of t h e par01 e v i d e n c e r u l e . K i n j e r s k i v. Lamey, s u p r a . Upon remand, t h e d i s t r i c t judge p a r t i a l l y g r a n t e d a motion by p l a i n t i f f f o r summary judgment , s t a t i n g : " [TI he Court now d e c i d e s t h a t t h e Defendants owe t o s a i d p l a i n t i f f s and Third P a r t y Defendants c e r t a i n cows, b u t is unable a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e which cows or t h e i r o f f s p r i n g . That q u e s t i o n is l e f t f o r d e t e r - m i n a t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r . " A t t h e new t r i a l e v i d e n c e was adduced showing t h a t a list o f tattoo numbers of c a t t l e was submitted w i t h t h e b i l l of sale t o t h e F i r s t Northwestern Bank of K a l i s p e l l as c o l l a t e r a l f o r K i n j e r s k i l s l o a n . The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r showed t h a t an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t list of tattoo numbers accompanied t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s a c t i o n . Lamey t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t have p o s s e s s i o n of a n y of ~ i n j e r s k i ' s c a t t l e i n A p r i l , 1978 when demand w a s made. The c a s e was submitted t o t h e j u r y w i t h a s p e c i a l i n t e r r o - g a t o r y form which was t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . I n per- t i n e n t p a r t , t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were: " 1 ) Did F r i t z Lamey or P h i l l i p s Creek Ranch, I n c . have any c a t t l e belonging to t h e p l a i n t i f f i n A p r i l , 1978? "Answer: (Circle o n e ) Y e s " 2 ) I f t h e answer to Number 1 is No, d o n o t proceed any f u r t h e r . I f t h e answer to Number 1 is Y e s , how many cattle d i d F r i t z Lamey o r hilli ips Creek Ranch, Inc. have, and what was t h e i r value?" The j u r y answered t h e f i r s t i n t e r r o g a t o r y i n t h e n e g a t i v e and l e f t t h e rest of t h e q u e s t i o n s unanswered i n accordance w i t h t h e d i r e c t i o n s . Judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f . K i n j e r s k i a r g u e s t h a t t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were c o n t r a r y to t h e l a w of t h e case as determined by K i n j e r s k i v. Lamey, s u p r a , and by t h e p a r t i a l summary judgment e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t judge. K i n j e r s k i f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , v e r d i c t and judgment were c o n t r a r y to t h e l a w of Montana concerning a b u y e r ' s remedies f o r f a i l u r e of t h e seller t o d e l i v e r . S e c t i o n 30-2-711, MCA. The use of a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t is a u t h o r i z e d by Rule 4 9 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., and is l e f t to t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . While it is w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n to s t r u c t u r e t h e form and frame t h e q u e s t i o n s of a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , t h e i n t e r r o g a - tories must be a d e q u a t e to e n a b l e t h e j u r y to d e t e r m i n e t h e fac- t u a l i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l t o judgment. G l i c k v. Knoll (1959) t 136 Mont. 176, 346 P.2d 987; Coburn Cattle Co. v . Small ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 3 5 Mont. 288, 88 P. 953; 5A Moore's Federal P r a c t i c e § 49.03[2]. In d e t e r m i n i n g t h e adequacy of t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s c o n s i d e r t h e following f a c t o r s : " ( i ) w h e t h e r , when read as a whole and i n con- j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e g e n e r a l charge t h e i n t e r r o g a - tories a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e n t e d t h e c o n t e s t e d i s s u e s t o t h e j u r y ; ( ii) whether t h e submission of t h e i s s u e s t o t h e j u r y was ' f a i r ' ; and (iii) w h e t h e r t h e ' u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n s of f a c t ' were c l e a r l y s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . " D r e i l i n g v. General Electric C o . ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 1 1 F.2d 768, 774. ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) When measured a g a i n s t t h e above s t a n d a r d s , t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t i n t h i s case is i n a d e q u a t e . The c e n t r a l i s s u e , whether t h e p l a i n t i f f i n f a c t o b t a i n e d d e l i v e r y of t h e cattle which he had bargained f o r , was n o t submitted to t h e j u r y by t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . The j u r y found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t have a n y of p l a i n t i f f ' s cattle on t h e d a t e of demand. The answer to t h a t q u e s t i o n , however, is n o t d i s p o s i t i v e of a l l t h e i s s u e s i n t h e case. It is n o t clear whether t h e j u r y determined t h a t d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t have t h e cattle because p l a i n t i f f had a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r y or because d e f e n d a n t s o l d them a t market. I f o p e r a t i n g under t h e l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y , t h e j u r y w a s precluded by t h e d i r e c t i o n s i n t h e second i n t e r r o g a t o r y from d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l u e of t h e cattle and t h e damages, i f any, s u f f e r e d by p l a i n t i f f . I n o r d e r to a d e q u a t e l y cover t h e i s s u e s i n t h e case, t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t should have i n c l u d e d , i n t e r a l i a , q u e s t i o n s con- c e r n i n g what happened to t h e cattle af t e r t h e b i l l of sale was e x e c u t e d , which list of t a t t o o numbers c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e a n i m a l s which were t h e s u b j e c t of t h e b i l l of s a l e , whether p l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r y of t h e 49 cows a f t e r e x e c u t i o n of t h e b i l l of sale and i f n o t , what damages were due to him. W e f i n d t h a t t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were f a t a l l y d e f i c i e n t and we remand f o r a new t r i a l . W e n o t e f o r guidance of c o u r t and c o u n s e l on remand t h a t o u r p r i o r o p i n i o n did n o t r e q u i r e t h e e x c l u s i o n of any e v i d e n c e , oral or w r i t t e n , o f e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e b i l l of sale. The par01 e v i d e n c e r u l e o p e r a t e s to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e of agreements of t h e p a r t i e s p r i o r to o r contemporaneous w i t h t h e e x e c u t i o n of a f i n a l w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n of t h e agreement. S e c t i o n 28-2-904, MCA. Evidence of t h e lists of tat- t o o numbers was a d m i s s i b l e to e x p l a i n to which s p e c i f i c cows t h e b i l l of sale r e f e r r e d . S e c t i o n 28-2-905(2) , MCA. F u r t h e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary judgment g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was i n error. I n o r d e r to d e c i d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s owed to p l a i n - t i f f c e r t a i n cows, t h e t r i a l c o u r t had to r e s o l v e d i s p u t e d fac- t u a l i s s u e s which should have been l e f t f o r t h e jury. Reversed and remanded f o r a new t r i a l . Chief ~ u s tice W e concur: