Title: NOVCO v GRAINGER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-019
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 1982

N o . 82-19 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT 03 THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 NOVCO, a Corp., P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- HAROLD L. GRAINGER and HOWARD G. GRAINGEK, Defendants and Respondents, and HAROLD L. GiiAINGER AND HOWARD G. GRAINGER, Thir.d-Party E l a i n f i f f s and Bespondei3ks, ED NOViS, i n d i v i d u a l l y , Third-Party Defendant and Respondent, and SUNSET CARBURETOR AND ELECTRIC, I N C . , a Montana Corp., Third-Party Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Cascade, The HonorabLe John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: E. Eugene Atherton, K a l i s p e l i , Montana Fos Respondents: P a t r i c k M. Springer, K a l s i p e l l , Montana J a r d i n e , Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver; Alexander Blewett, 11, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : May 2 7 , 1982 Decided: & gg m1 Filed: JuL 2 9 1982 Mr. 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 Court. P l a i n t i f f Novco brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s Harold Grainger and Howard Grainger i n two counts: Count I was an a c t i o n on an open account f o r $37,557.58 f o r auto- motive p a r t s a l l e g e d l y d e l i v e r e d by Novco t o Sunset Carbure- t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc.; Count I1 was an a c t i o n a g a i n s t Harold Grainger i n d i v i d u a l l y t o c o l l e c t on a bad check f o r $30,000 drawn on t h e account of Sunset Automotive, Inc., and signed by Douglas Wolf and Harold G r a i n g e r , upon which Grainger is a l l e g e d t o be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e because he knew o r should have known t h e r e were i n s u f f i c i e n t funds i n t h e account t o t h e c r e d i t of Sunset Automotive when he drew and d e l i v e r e d t h e check, Defendants Grainger f a i l e d t o appear and answer and t h e i r d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d , T h i s d e f a u l t was s u b s e q u e n t l y s e t a s i d e and t h e G r a i n g e r s f i l e d an answer, a c o u n t e r c l a i m and a t h i r d p a r t y complaint. The s u b s t a n c e of t h e t h i r d p a r t y complaint was t h a t Sunset C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., a c o r p o r a t i o n , and n o t t h e G r a i n g e r s p e r s o n a l l y , was t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f Novco. T h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t Sunset C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., moved f o r a change of venue which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d . T h i s appeal followed. The s o l e i s s u e on appeal is t h e r i g h t of t h i r d p a r t y defendant Sunset C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , t o a change of venue from t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Cascade County t o t h e F l a t h e a d County D i s t r i c t Court. P l a i n t i f f Novco and t h i r d p a r t y defendant Sunset C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., a g r e e t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l d e f e n d a n t s , Harold Grainger and Howard G r a i n g e r , waived t h e i r r i g h t t o c h a l l e n g e venue of t h e a c t i o n by t h e i r f a i l u r e t o so move. Third p a r t y d e f e n d a n t Sunset Carbure- t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., contends t h a t it h a s an independent r i g h t , a s a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t , t o a change of venue of t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n because under Rule 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., i t is e n t i t l e d t o a s s e r t a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f any d e f e n s e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s Grainger might have a s s e r t e d . W e n o t e t h a t Montana s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o venue con- t a i n no s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n regarding t h e r i g h t s of t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s t o o b j e c t t o venue. Rule 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., does provide t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t may a s s e r t a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f d e f e n s e s which t h e t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f h a s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m , b u t t h i s p r o v i s i o n does n o t a p p l y t o motions f o r a change of venue. There a r e two b a s i c r e a s o n s why t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a change of venue. F i r s t , Sunset C a r b u r e t o r is n o t a proper p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . The Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure do n o t permit a t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n - t i f f t o implead a s a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t a p a r t y who is n o t a p a r t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l proceeding and who is o r may be l i a b l e t o t h e o r i g i n a l p l a i n t i f f . Rule 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., o n l y p e r m i t s impleader of a p a r t y who "is o r may be l i a b l e " t o t h e t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f . Secondly, we hold i n accord w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e of o b j e c t i n g t o venue i n t h e main a c t i o n is a p e r s o n a l p r i v i l e g e belonging t o t h e defendant i n t h e main a c t i o n a l o n e and n o t t o a t h i r d p a r t y defendant. Brandt v , Olson (N.D. Iowa, E.D. 1 9 5 9 ) , 179 F.Supp. 3 6 3 , I t is g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y proceeding growing o u t of t h e same s u b j e c t m a t t e r a s t h e main a c t i o n and i n v o l v i n g many o f t h e same f a c t s is a n c i l l a r y t o t h e p r i n c i p a l a c t i o n and its venue r e s t s upon t h a t of t h e p r i n c i p a l a c t i o n . P e l i n s k i v. Goodyear T i r e & Rubber Co. (N.D. I l l . 1 9 8 0 ) , 499 F.Supp. 1092; Seafood Imports, I n c . v. A. J. Cunningham Pkg. Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 7 5 ) , 405 F.Supp. 5; S e a s o n - A l l I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v . Merchant S h i p p e r s (W.D. Pa. 1 9 7 4 ) , 385 F.Supp. 517; Thompson v. United A r t i s t s T h e a t r e C i r c u i t , I n c , (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 6 7 ) , 43 F.R.D. 339; Bonath v. Aetna F r e i g h t Lines, I n c , (W.D. Pa, 1 9 6 3 ) , 33 F.R.D. 260; Globig v. Greene & G u s t Co. (E.D. Wisc. 1 9 6 0 ) , 184 F.Supp. 530; M o r r e l l v. u n i t e d A i r Lines T r a n s p o r t Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 3 9 ) , 29 F.Supp. 757. See a l s o , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure, Wright & M i l l e r , s e c t i o n 1445; 3 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , s e c t i o n 14.28 [2] ; s e c t i o n 9, Annot., 100 ALR2d 693, 708, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . A£ £ i rmed, . - - Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: