Title: LINK v STATE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13686
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 22, 1977

No. 13686 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 HENRY A. LINK et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, THE STATE OF MONTANA, Acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME et al., Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Clayton Herron argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Hutton, Sheehy and Cromley, Billings, Montana John C. Sheehy argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: May 25, 1977 ~ecided: JUL22 1 9 1 7 Filed: J U 2 2 )gpl- M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order granting partial summary judgment i n an a c t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c performance of c o n t r a c t o r damages f i l e d i n the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County. Prior t o January 1, 1950 p l a i n t i f f had a concession t o operate a mountain r a i l r o a d and tram i n Lewis and Clark Caverns S t a t e Park. The tram took v i s i t o r s from a parking l o t up a mountainside t o the entrance of the L e w i s and Clark Caverns. I n 1950 the S t a t e Park Commission (appellant Fish and Game Commission is the successor agency c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t e parks, formerly under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e S t a t e Park commission) entered i n t o an agreement with Link Bros., Concessionaires, p l a i n t i f f and respondent herein, whereby the S t a t e Park Commission took over the operation and maintenance of the r a i l r o a d and tram. That agreement provided: "The Commission hereby agrees t o take over the operation and maintenance of' the said mountain r a i l r o a d , a l s o known and designated as a h o i s t and tramway, a t L e w i s and Clark Caverns S t a t e Park, Montana, as of January 1, 1950, and t o operate and maintain same a t i t s own expense. The equity of s a i d Concessionaires i n t h e business of said mountain r a i l r o a d as provided i n s a i d agreement of June 15, 1946, s h a l l be recognized by the payments t o the concessionaires by t h e s a i d Commission the following amounts* * * . I 1 The agreement a l s o provided: "Said Commission f u r t h e r agrees t o operate s a i d mountain r a i l r o a d , tram and h o i s t , and handle t h e v i s i t i n g public thereon i n such a way as t o encourage s a i d public t o use t h e other f a c i l i t i e s o$ the Concessionaries a t s a i d Lewis and Clark Caverns S t a t e Park, and t o operate said r a i l r o a d i n a manner that is b e n e f i c i a l t o the business of the Concessionaires* * *.I1 P l a i n t i f f ' s complaint a l l e g e s that t h e s t a t e of Montana, through its Fish and Game Commission, has refused t o operate and maintain s a i d r a i l r o a d , as it agreed t o do under the contract, and has disbanded and set a s i d e the equipment and machinery r e l a t i n g t o the r a i l r o a d . Based upon a f f i d a v i t s and answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , p l a i n t i f f concessionaire made a motion f o r a p a r t i a l summary judgment t o the e f f e c t t h a t t h e s t a t e of Montana, through its Fish and Game Commission, had breached, was now i n breach, and intended i n the f u t u r e t o breach its contractual duty t o operate and maintain the mountain r a i l r o a d and tram. The d i s t r i c t court granted the p a r t i a l summary judgment on November 4, 1976. The operative language of the c o u r t ' s order f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment is: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t p l a i n t i f f s be and a r e hereby granted p a r t i a l summary judgment t o the e f f e c t t h a t the defendants breached, do now breach, and intend i n the future t o breach t h e i r contractual duty t o operate and maintain the mountain r a i l r o a d and tram i n U w i s and Clark S t a t e Caverns; and t h e Court hereby reserves the f u r t h e r decision whether t h e defendants a r e e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f by v i r t u e of t h e i r amended and supplemental answer and counterclaim, and, i f p l a i n t i f f s are e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , whether such r e l i e f s h a l l be by s p e c i f i c performance o r by compensation i n damages. " Respondent Concessionaire moved t o deny the Comrnissionts appeal on t h r e e grounds: 1. That the order is non-appealable because it is i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n character and not a f i n a l judgment. 2. That t h e appeal is frivolous and taken f o r the purpose of delay only. 3. That t h e n o t i c e of appeal was not timely. In view of t h i s Court's holding that the order i n t h i s case granting partial summary judgment is not appealable, w e w i l l not consider the second and t h i r d grounds. Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., grants the d i s t r i c t court power t o e n t e r summary judgment. Subdivisions ( c ) and (d) thereof provide: I' (c ) Motion and Proceedings Thereon. The motion s h a l l be served a t l e a s t 10 days before the time fixed f o r t h e hearing. The adverse party p r i o r t o the day of hearing may serve opposing a f f i d a v i t s . The judgment sought s h a l l be rendered forthwith i f t h e pleadings, depositions, answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e , together with t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i f any, show that t h e r e is no genuine i s s u e as t o any material f a c t and t h a t the moving party is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n character, may be rendered on the i s s u e of lia- b i l i t y alone although t h e r e is a genuine i s s u e as t o the amount of damages. "(d) Case Not Fully Adjudicated on Motion. If on motion under t h i s r u l e judgment is not rendered upon the whole case o r f o r a l l the r e l i e f asked and a t r i a l is necessary, the court a t the hearing of the motion, by examining t h e pleadings and t h e evidence before it and by i n t e r r o g a t i n g counsel, s h a l l i f practicable a s c e r t a i n what m a t e r i a l f a c t s e x i s t without s u b s t a n t i a l controversy and what m a t e r i a l f a c t s are a c t u a l l y and i n good f a i t h controverted. It s h a l l thereupon make an order specifying t h e f a c t s t h a t appear without s u b s t a n t i a l controversy, including the e x t e n t t o which the amount of damages o r other r e l i e f is not i n con- troversy, and d i r e c t i n g such f u r t h e r proceedings i n t h e a c t i o n as a r e just. Upon the t r i a l of the a c t i o n the f a c t s s o specified s h a l l be deemed established, and t h e t r i a l s h a l l be conducted accordingly. 11 Under the provisions of Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., t h i s Court has held t h a t a summary judgment may be interlocutory i n charac' and t h a t t h e t r i a l court can reserve f o r f u t u r e decision o r trii such other matters as a r e i n controversy and that the c o u r t may consider such f u r t h e r proceedings as are j u s t . I n Schultz v. Adams, 161 Mont. 463, 466, 507 P.2d 530, t h i s Court noted, c i t i n g from Russell v. Barnes Foundation, 136 F.2d 654, decided on t h e f e d e r a l r u l e i d e n t i c a l t o Montana's Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P.: " I * * * The motion must be granted s i n c e the order appealed from, although it determines t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h e defendant t o the p l a i n t i f f , w i l l not become a f i n a l adjudication of the controversy between them u n t i l the damages t o which the p l a i n t i f f is e n t i t l e d have been assessed. See also: Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, 173 F.2d 3. The s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y f o r e n t e r i n g a p a r t i a l summary judgment on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y alone, leaving the i s s u e of damages f o r trial, is contained i n Rule 5 6 ( c ) ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P., which designates t h i s type of summary judgment as " i n t e r l o c u t o r y ~ i n character". The appeal is therefore premature. I For the above reasons the motion t o dismiss the appeal ~ is granted. The appeal is ordered dismissed. I W e Concur: , , / - 7 \-- Ad 4 s - CHief J u s t i c e