Opinion ID: 878967
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The one foot of land area in all within LITTLE

Text: BEAR subdivision, immediately adjacent to the exterior boundaries thereof shall be considered as RESERVED from the dedication contained on the plat of LITTLE BEAR.  There is no authorization for such an agreement. The above cited standards and regulations prohibit any such agreement. It is obvious that the intent of the agreement was to subvert the Certificate of Dedication, which granted to the public the ownership and right to use all of the streets including the one foot in question. I would therefore agree with the contention of the plaintiffs that the contract is void under § 28-2-603, MCA, which in substance provides that where the single object of a contract is unlawful, the entire contract is void. That is an accurate description of this particular contract. I would therefore conclude that the instructions given were a correct statement of the law. In doing so I would point out that the District Court in the last sentence of Instruction No. 10 directed the jury that it may consider the defendants' actions concerning the agreement with the County Commissioners in determining whether the defendants acted innocently or in good faith or whether they acted maliciously. After the receipt of the instructions, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $22,000 actual damages and $20,000 in punitive damages. I would hold that Jury Instructions No. 8 and No. 10 were adequate statements of the law. I would further hold that the trial court did not err in its refusal to instruct on the law of rescission. I find no basis for requiring some type of notice before rescinding a contract which is improper and therefore unlawful under the statutes. I do not see how some sort of equitable requirement is necessary before Gallatin County gave notice that it cancelled the contract which on its face is illegal. In addition, I do not find that the award of damages was excessive or unsupported by substantial evidence. As T have previously indicated, the instruction regarding the attempted reservation of one foot of the streets stated to the jury that it could consider the actions of the defendants in determining whether the defendants acted innocently or in good faith or maliciously. It seems clear that all of these were issues properly determined by the jury in accordance with the law. I would affirm the District Court. Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswe11 joins in the foregoing dissent.