Title: MONT DEPT OF BUS REG v HARTFOR
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13053
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 19, 1976

No. 13053 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 1975 MONTANA D E P A R T M E N T O F BUSINESS REGUTATION, M I L K C O N T R O L DIVISION, on behalf of the STATE O F MONTANA, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - H A R T F O R D ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY C O M P A N Y , a corporation, e t a l . , Defendant and Respondent. --------------I-------------------------------- M O N T A N A D E P A R T M E N T OF BUSINESS REGULATION, M I L K C O N T R O L DIVISION, Relator and P l a i n t i f f , 'VS - BEST DAIRY FARMS, a Montana Corporation, Respondent and Defendant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable ~ a c k D. Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : James H. ElcFarland argued, Helena, Montana Geoffrey Brazier argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Drysdale, McTJean 6 Scully, Bozeman, Montana James J. Screnar argued, Bozeman, Montana Filed : Submitted: December 10, 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the d i s t r i c t court i n Gallatin County, the Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom presiding. The summary judgment was f o r defendants i n two consolidated cases. P l a i n t i f f i s the Montana Department of Business Regula- t i o n , Milk Control Division. Defendants a r e Best Dairy Farms, a corporation, licensed and bonded a s a d i s t r i b u t o r under the Montana Milk Control Act, and its s u r e t i e s under the statutory milk d i s t r i b u t o r ' s bond. P l a i n t i f f and c e r t a i n named milk producers f i l e d s u i t against Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company and ire man's Fund under section 27-426,, R.C.M. 1947, t o enforce payment t o milk producers supplying Best Dairy Farms f o r t h e i r product. Subsequently p l a i n t i f f f i l e d s u i t against Best Dairy Farms and the cases were consolidated f o r t r i a l . T r i a l was had without a jury and summary judgment was granted t o defendants and the case dis- missed on i t s merits. During a period between September 1969 and April 1970, an audit of the monthly reports and supporting plant records of Best Dairy Farms was made by auditors of t h e Eoard of Milk Control. The r e s u l t s of t h i s audit indicated t h a t the sum of $14,686.40 had been systematically deducted from the payments t o 24 producers of Best Dairy Farms, and shown as "miscellaneous dairy charges". The deductions were based on $0.03 per hundredweight (from $3.00 per hundredweight) on all milk sold by t h e producers t o Best Dairy Farms. The "miscellaneous dairy charges" were i n f a c t an amount agreed t o by the producers t o rent a machine f o r packaging milk i n one gallon containers i n order t o meet competition and so t h a t t h e producers would continue t o receive I I a b e t t e r price f o r package milk r a t h e r than cheese milk" which had a lower price. The packaging machine was leased f o r $245 per month and the producers o r a l l y agreed t o pay the lease price by a deduction of the $0.03 per hundredweight. This maneuver, a s o r t of cooperative venture by the d i s t r i b u t o r and i t s producers by o r a l agreement, was reported a s "miscellaneous dairy charges". It i s t h i s deduction t h a t the Board determined was a d i l u t i o n of minimum price paid t o the producers and thus a violation. Those deduction were made from M a y 1965 t o the completion of the audit. Following administrative determinations, the d i s t r i b u t o r was ordered t o repay the t o t a l amount of $14,686.40 t o the 24 producers. Best Dairy Farms met with the producers and subsequently issued checks t o each. Only one producer out of the 24 accepted h i s refund. The others e i t h e r cashed the check and wrote out t h e i r personal check back t o Best Dairy Farms or simply did not pick up t h e i r checks. They each f e l t morally obligated t o abide by t h e i r original agreement t o r e n t the packaging machine and did not o r a r e not now claiming-aything -- - against Rest Dairy Farms or i t s bonding companies. With t h i s remarkable s t a t e of a f f a i r s , the Board has pursued the matter a l l the way t o t h i s Court claiming t h a t the "miscellaneous dairy charges" "JC JC ; ? was nothing more than an a r t f u l l y contrived subterfuge whereby the primary means of achieving the purpose of the Act were effectively circumvented. If To add more t o the puzzle of why the case i s here, Best Dairy Farms sold out and i s no longer i n business. The ~ o a r d ' s b r i e f on appeal s t a t e s t h a t "The end r e s u l t was t h a t funds t o which some producers were e n t i t l e d under the Act repose among the a s s e t s and resources of the d i s t r i b u t o r and have inured t o i t s b e n e f i t , a r e s u l t which none of i t s competitors i s known t o enjoy. 11 The Board urges two issues on +peal, one of which i s controlling. That issue i s whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n granting summary judgment and dismissing t h e case on i t s merits. The d i s t r i c t court i n e f f e c t found that there i s no j u s t i c i a b l e issue presented, N o producer, alleged t o have been shorted, has f i l e d any claim---although requested t o do so a s section 27-426, R.C.M. 1947, provides. The s u r e t i e s a r e c l e a r l y exonerated a s provided i n section 30-406, R.C.M. 1947, by performance by Best Dairy Farms i n complying with the refund order. To find any j u s t i c i a b l e issue i s l i k e grasping spaghetti. The end r e s u l t i s the same--the d i s t r i b u t o r paid---the producers, except one---paid baclc. N o one owes anyone anything. The Board urges "public policy" a s requiring it t o pursue the matter. The law does not require i d l e a c t s , section 49-124, R.C.M. 1947. Nor does it require impossibilities, section 49-123, R.C.M. 1947. It does disregard t r i f l e s , section 49-125, R.C.M. 1947. The purpose of the Milk Control Act of providing a con- tinuous source of pure, wholesome milk i n the public i n t e r e s t ( T i t l e 27, Chapter 4, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947) and t o eliminate unfair and demoralizing trade practices i n the milk industry has been accomplished. Nothing remains. Finding no e r r o r , the judgment i s affirmed. 'add Justices.