ROCK SPRINGS CORP v PIERRE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14667 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 ROCK SPRINGS CORPORATION, and LAWRENCE McCUNE, Plaintiffs and Respondents, W. H. PIERRE, d/b/a W.H. PIERRE ASSOCIATES, LTS., and L.B.M. CONSTRUCTION I INC & . Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Hon. Robert J. Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Richard J. Llewellyn argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: R. Thomas Garrison argued, Virginia City, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: 4UG I1 1 9 ! May 23, 1980 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 . Mr. Rock S p r i n g s C o r p o r a t i o n (Rock S p r i n g s ) and Lawrence McCune, n o t p a r t i e s i n t h i s a p p e a l , b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r c o n v e r s i o n of mine t a i l i n g s i n Madison County, Montana. P i e r r e d/b/a W. H. Pierre t i o n ( P i e r r e and L.B.M.), & Defendants-appellants, A s s o c i a t e s and L.B.M. H. W. Construc- f i l e d a t h i r d p a r t y complaint a g a i n s t C a m i l l a Gage, r e s p o n d e n t h e r e i n , s e e k i n g t o h o l d h e r l i a b l e based on h e r c l a i m s of ownership. The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f Rock S p r i n g s and McCune and a g a i n s t Pierre and L.B.M., third party action. and f u r t h e r found i n f a v o r of Gage i n t h e P i e r r e and L.B.M. now a p p e a l s o l e l y from t h e v e r d i c t i n t h e t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n . I n t h e R o c h e s t e r B a s i n , w e s t of Twin B r i d g e s , Montana, t h e r e a r e t a i l i n g s from t h e Watseca mine which a r e l o c a t e d on t h e " C o n c e n t r a t o r T a i l i n g s P l a c e r Unpatented Mining Claim." The competing c l a i m s of ownership of t h e t a i l i n g s gave r i s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t i o n . The mining c l a i m had been l o c a t e d on f e d e r a l l a n d i n 1934 by William Gage and r e l o c a t e d by h i s w i f e , C a m i l l a Gage, i n 1941 f o l l o w i n g h i s death. The t a i l i n g s r e s u l t e d from t h e p r o c e s s i n g of mater- i a l s from t h e Watseca Mine and o t h e r claims l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y one m i l e n o r t h of C a m i l l a Gage's c l a i m . The m i l l , known a s t h e C l a r k C o n c e n t r a t o r , p r o c e s s e d t h e m i n e r a l s and d e p o s i t e d t h e t a i l i n g s upon what i s now M r s . Gage's c l a i m between t h e l a t e 1 8 6 0 ' s and 1898. Lawrence McCune i s t h e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o t h e Watseca Mine and o t h e r c l a i m s n e a r i t which w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o c u m u l a t i v e l y a s t h e "Watseca. " Tailings a r e a l s o located on McCune's " C o n c e n t r a t o r Q u a r t z Lode Mining Claim." These t a i l i n g s w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e "upper t a i l i n g s " w h i l e t h e t a i l i n g s l o c a t e d on M r s . "lower t a i l i n g s , Gage's c l a i m w i l l be c a l l e d t h e " ~ h i r d a r t y p l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t W. p H. Pierre m e t third p a r t y d e f e n d a n t - r e s p o n d e n t C a m i l l a Gage i n 1967 w h i l e h e was a t t e n d i n g t h e S c h o o l of Mines i n B u t t e . Mrs. Gage was and p r e s e n t l y i s a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r i n Twin B r i d g e s . Pierre w a s v e r y i n t e r e s t e d i n t e s t i n g b o t h t h e lower t a i l i n g s and t h e upper t a i l i n g s i n 1967, and h e c o n t a c t e d b o t h M r s . and Lawrence McCune. Mrs. Gage Gage a u t h o r i z e d P i e r r e t o t e s t t h e lower t a i l i n g s , and McCune a u t h o r i z e d him t o t e s t t h e upper t a i l i n g s d u r i n g a l i m i t e d t i m e p e r i o d which ended i n December 1967. P i e r r e ' s t e s t s came o u t n e g a t i v e ; t h e c o s t o f removing, h a u l i n g and p r o c e s s i n g t h e m a t e r i a l would exceed any r e v e n u e s t o be d e r i v e d from t h e m i n e r a l s . I n 1969 t h e p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o Rock S p r i n g s a c q u i r e d a lease and o p t i o n t o t h e Watseca c l a i m s from Lawrence McCune. Between 1968 and 1972, P i e r r e worked i n v a r i o u s capac i t i e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada. I n 1972 h e once a g a i n c o n t a c t e d M r s . Gage c o n c e r n i n g t h e lower t a i l i n g s . P i e r r e had d i s c o v e r e d a method which would make t h e e x t r a c t i o n of t h e m i n e r a l s p r o f i t a b l e . The method i n v o l v e d t h e t r a n s p o r t i n g of t h e t a i l i n g s t o B u t t e where t h e y would be mixed w i t h s i l i c a . When s i l i c a w a s added i n s u f f i c i e n t q u a n t i t y , f r e e s m e l t i n g c o u l d be o b t a i n e d which r e s u l t e d i n t h e e x t r a c t i o n of t h e minerals i n t h e t a i l i n g s with only t h e i n c u r r e n c e of c o s t s f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t h e s i l i c a itself. The c o s t of s h i p p i n g t h e t a i l i n g s t o t h e s m e l t e r w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6.50 p e r t o n , w h i l e t h e c o s t of s i l i c a w a s $ . l o p e r ton. Mrs. Gage r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t s h e owned t h e t a i l i n g s a s a r e s u l t of h e r c l a i m . She c o n t i n u e d t o a s s e r t t h i s ownership through t r i a l . P i e r r e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he n e v e r q u e s t i o n e d h e r ownership. I n l a t e 1972 o r e a r l y 1973 M r s . Gage and L.B.M. Construction, Inc., a company comprised of P i e r r e and two o t h e r s , e n t e r e d i n t o a n o r a l agreement f o r t h e removal o f t h e lower t a i l i n g s , i n May 1973. A w r i t t e n agreement w a s e n t e r e d i n t o It recited that M r s . p e r t o n of t a i l i n g s removed. Gage was t o r e c e i v e $.50 I t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e 15,000 t o n s of t a i l i n g s . I n 1973 P i e r r e began e x t r a c t i n g t h e t a i l i n g s and t r a n s p o r t i n g them f o r s m e l t i n g . Expert testimony revealed t h a t 3539 c u b i c y a r d s o f t a i l i n g s were removed. Also, a c c o r d i n g t o e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y , t h e amount of g o l d and s i l v e r removed was e s t i m a t e d t o be 694.4 t r o y ounces of g o l d and 4539 t r o y ounces o f s i l v e r . The h i g h e s t v a l u e of g o l d between t h e t i m e of e x t r a c t i o n i n 1973 and t h e i n i t i a t i o n of t h i s s u i t was $195.25 p e r t r o y ounce on December 30, 1974, w h i l e t h e h i g h e s t p r i c e f o r s i l v e r was $6.06 i n May 1974. According t o t h i s e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y t h e g r o s s v a l u e of t h e m i n e r a l s t a k e n a t t h e h i g h e s t p r i c e w a s $163,087. Further evidence w a s introduced revealing t h e disbursements made by t h e Anaconda Company. This information, s u p p l i e d by Anaconda, shows t h a t f o r t h e months of F e b r u a r y t h r o u g h J u n e , 1973, Anaconda p a i d P i e r r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y $70,000 f o r t h e m i n e r a l s p r o c e s s e d a t t h e s m e l t e r . his f i g u r e i s t h e n e t d i s b u r s e m e n t a f t e r t h e c o s t of t h e s i l i c a w a s deducted. P i e r r e a l s o made s h i p m e n t s t o Anaconda i n J u l y t h r o u g h O c t o b e r , 1973; however, Anaconda d i d n o t s u p p l y t h e amount d i s b u r s e d f o r t h i s p e r i o d . $3,000 from L.B.M. Mrs. Gage r e c e i v e d f o r t h e removal of t h e t a i l i n g s . A l s o i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l were two r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d by mining e n g i n e e r s i n t h e 1 9 3 0 ' s . The r e p o r t s w e r e p r e p a r e d by Uuno Sahinen and W i l l i a m S. Gage, C a m i l l a Gage's d e c e a s e d husband, and t h e y d i s c l o s e t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of t h e t a i l i n g s i n question. The r e p o r t s d i s c l o s e d t h a t t h e lower t a i l i n g s belonged t o t h e Watseca mining o p e r a t i o n . Pierre t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had r e a d t h e r e p o r t s and w a s f a m i l i a r w i t h them. Testimony w a s a l s o adduced c o n c e r n i n g P i e r r e ' s d e g r e e i n mining e n g i n e e r i n g and h i s e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e i n mining. H i s e x p e r i e n c e i n mining d a t e s back t o 1958, and h e r e c e i v e d h i s d e g r e e from t h e School of Mines i n 1968. S e v e r a l e x h i b i t s of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between P i e r r e , McCune, Rock S p r i n g s C o r p o r a t i o n , and C a m i l l a Gage were introduced i n t o evidence. These e x h i b i t s r e f l e c t , t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , t h e knowledge of t h e p a r t i e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e ownership of t h e c l a i m s . T h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i s summarized as follows: September 25, 1967 Letter--McCune t o Pierre. McCune r e f e r r e d t o a t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h P i e r r e i n which P i e r r e s o u g h t a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o t e s t mine t a i l i n g s i n t h e R o c h e s t e r Basin. McCune gave P i e r r e p e r m i s s i o n " t o sample and t e s t t h e Watseca Mine t a i l i n g s and t h e C o n c e n t r a t o r ... tailings s u b j e c t t o t h e following: a g r e e t o work a t l e a s t one-half . . . You will of t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 46,000 t o n s of t a i l i n g s , i n t h e e v e n t a working c o n t r a c t i s e n t e r e d into .. .'I ( T h i s r e f e r e n c e t o 46,000 t o n s i s d e r i v e d from t h e S a h i n e n R e p o r t which s t a t e s t h a t t h e two t a i l i n g s dumps i n t h e a r e a c o n t a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g q u a n t i t y of tonnage: "Watseca t a i l i n g s " (upper tailings)--31,000 c e n t r a t o r t a i l i n g s " (lower t a i l i n g s ) --15,000 t o n s , and "Contons. ) October 30, 1972 Letter--Pierre t o McCune. Pierre at- tempted t o s e c u r e a n o p t i o n on t h e Watseca p r o p e r t y . He gave a b r i e f h i s t o r y of h i s p r i o r d e a l i n g s and t e s t i n g s i n t h e a r e a and h i s p r i o r c o n t r a c t w i t h C a m i l l a Gage. Pierre s t a t e d t h a t he w a s c u r r e n t l y " s h i p p i n g t a i l i n g s from a n o t h e r mine i n t h e same g e n e r a l a r e a a s t h e Wasecca [ s i c ] and would l i k e t o r e - o p t i o n t h e Wasecca [ s i c ] November 2 , 1972 ." Letter--McCune t o Pierre. McCune informed P i e r r e t h a t C a m i l l a Gage a t no t i m e had " a u t h o r i t y t o o p t i o n m Watseca p r o p e r t y " , and t h a t any a c t i o n t o l e a s e y t h e p r o p e r t y was p r e c l u d e d a t t h i s t i m e a s a r e s u l t of a n existing lease. J a n u a r y 2 , 1973 Letter--Pierre t o Rock S p r i n g s C o r p o r a t i o n . P i e r r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e c e i p t o f a l e t t e r from M r . McLean, Unfortunately, t h e letter t h e p r e s i d e n t o f Rock S p r i n g s . w r i t t e n by McLean was n o t i n t r o d u c e d a s a n e x h i b i t . Pierre i n t h e January 2 letter s t a t e d , "I g r e a t l y appreciated r e c e i v i n g your l e t t e r a s M r s . Gage l e d m e t o b e l i e v e c o n d i - t i o n s w e r e q u i t e the contrary." The l e t t e r ' s purpose w a s t o a g a i n o b t a i n an o p t i o n t o t h e Watseca. J a n u a r y 30, 1973 Letter--Pierre t o McCune. This l e t t e r a l s o s o u g h t a n o p t i o n on t h e Watseca p r o p e r t y and contained t h e following statement: " U n f o r t u n a t e l y I was m i s l e d by M r s . C a m i l l i a [ s i c ] Gage of Twin B r i d g e s , Montana a s t o t h e ownership." May 25, 1973 Agreement t o P u r c h a s e Mining T a i l i n g s . T h i s agreement was e x e c u t e d between P i e r r e and Gage. It p u r p o r t e d t o s e l l mine t a i l i n g s known a s "The C o n c e n t r a t o r T a i l i n g s " f o r $7,500 p a y a b l e a t a r a t e of $.50 p e r t o n . September 1 7 , 1975 Letter--Gage t o Pierre. Camilla Gage s t a t e d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h i s l a w s u i t t o be ' ' p e r f e c t l y ridiculous", t h a t s h e s t i l l f e l t t h a t s h e owned t h e t a i l - i n g s , and t h a t " w e b o t h a c t e d i n good f a i t h when you h a u l e d t h e t a i l i n g s t o the smelter." The f o l l o w i n g j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e g i v e n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. I n s t r u c t i o n No. t i o n , and I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 was g i v e n w i t h o u t o b j e c - 20 was g i v e n o v e r a p p e l l a n t ' s objection. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f you f i n d i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s , and t h a t C a m i l l a Gage r e p r e s e n t e d t o W i l l i a m H. P i e r r e o r o t h e r o f f i c e r s o f L.B.M. C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. t h a t s h e was t h e owner of t h e lower t a i l i n g s on R o c h e s t e r C r e e k , and i f you f u r t h e r f i n d t h a t W i l l i a m H. P i e r r e and L.B.M. C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. r e l i e d on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f o w n e r s h i p made by C a m i l l a Gage, t o t h e i r d e t r i m e n t , t h e n W i l l i a m H. P i e r r e and L.B.M. C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. a r e e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r from C a m i l l a Gage t h e amount t h e y a r e r e q u i r e d t o pay t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s . " I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20: " I f you f i n d t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s , W.H. PIERRE, d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s W. H. PIERRE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.,; L B M C o n s t r u c t i o n , e n t e r e d i n t o a cont r a c t w i t h t h e T h i r d P a r t y D e f e n d a n t , CAMILLA GAGE whereby W. H. PIERRE, d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s W. H. PIERRE & ASSOCIATES o r t h e L B M C o n s t r u c t i o n Company p u r c h a s e d from CAMILLA GAGE m i l l t a i l i n g s s i t u a t e and l o c a t e d on t h e C o n c e n t r a t o r T a i l i n g s Unpatented P l a c e r C l a i m on which t h e P l a i n t i f f s c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s b a s e d and h e l d , u s e d o r c o n v e r t e d t h e mine t a i l i n g s under s u c h c o n t r a c t , knowing t h e p r o p e r t y b e l o n g e d t o t h e P l a i n t i f f s , L W E C McCUNE and ROCK SPRINGS A RNE CORPORATION, t h e n t h e D e f e n d a n t , W. H. PIERRE, d o i n g b u s i n e s s as W. H. PIERRE & ASSOCIATES and t h e D e f e n d a n t , L B M C o n s t r u c t i o n Company i s e s t o p p e d from d e n y i n g t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s had t i t l e t o t h e mine t a i l i n g s o r t h e r i g h t t o r e t a i n o w n e r s h i p of t h e t a i l i n g s , and you w i l l f i n d i n f a v o r of t h e Third P a r t y Defendant, CAMILLA GAGE. " The j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of t h e p l a i n t i f f s , Rock S p r i n g s and McCune, and a g a i n s t P i e r r e and L.B.M., t h e amount o f $76,382.31, in which i n c l u d e d $53,818.71 f o r c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e t a i l i n g s and $22,563.60 f o r t h e t i m e and e x p e n s e i n v o l v e d i n p u r s u i t of t h e c o n v e r t e d p r o p e r t y . The j u r y a l s o found a g a i n s t t h e t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f s , L.B.M. and P i e r r e , and i n f a v o r o f t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t , C a m i l l a Gage. A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s two i s s u e s Zor t h i s C o u r t , - t o c o n s i d e r : 1. I s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u r y I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ? 2. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t , C a m i l l a Gage? The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e c o e x t e n s i v e i n t h a t t h e y b o t h c h a l l e n g e t h e lower c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a p p e l l a n t P i e r r e knew of McCune's i n t e r e s t i n t h e t a i l i n g s . T h i s C o u r t h a s examined t h e r e c o r d below and c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t b o t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . W e f i n d two t h i n g s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e v e a l i n g i n r e a c h i n g our conclusion. F i r s t , t h e correspondence admitted i n t o e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n 1967 P i e r r e r e c e i v e d McCune's p e r m i s s i o n t o "sample and t e s t t h e Watseca Mine t a i l i n g s and t h e C o n c e n t r a t o r t a i l i n g s . " From t h i s t h e j u r y c o u l d p r o p e r l y i n f e r t h a t P i e r r e had knowledge of McCune's c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e lower t a i l i n g s . T h i s i s r e i n f o r c e d by t h e l e t t e r ' s r e f e r e n c e t o 46,000 t o n s of t a i l i n g s , a number a r r i v e d a t from t h e 31,000 t o n ( u p p e r t a i l i n g s ) and 15,000 t o n ( l o w e r t a i l i n g s ) f i g u r e s c i t e d i n t h e Sahinen R e p o r t w i t h which P i e r r e a d m i t t e d he w a s f a m i l i a r . W consider e t h i s p e r s u a s i v e e v i d e n c e of P i e r r e ' s n o t i c e of McCune c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t i n the Concentrator t a i l i n g s . Appellant argues t h a t M r s . Gage r e p r e s e n t e d t o him t h a t s h e owned t h e t a i l i n g s on t h e C o n c e n t r a t o r c l a i m and t h a t h e r e l i e d on t h o s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . However, a n e x a m i n a t i o n of o t h e r correspondence admitted a t t r i a l does n o t prove h i s argwnent. I t does, i n f a c t , l a y a foundation f o r t h e i n t r o - d u c t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 and t h e u l t i m a t e v e r d i c t . I n t h a t correspondence P i e r r e s t a t e d : a p p r e c i a t e d r e c e i v i n g your l e t t e r a s M r s . " I greatly Gage l e d m e t o believe conditions w e r e q u i t e the contrary" ( l e t t e r t o Thomas McLean, J a n u a r y 2, 1 9 7 3 ) ; " U n f o r t u n a t e l y I was m i s l e d by M r s . C a m i l l i a [ s i c ] Gage of Twin B r i d g e s , Montana a s t o t h e ownership" ( l e t t e r t o L. McCune, J a n u a r y 30, 1 9 7 3 ) . Even assuming t h a t P i e r r e , s u p p o s e d l y w e l l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e a r e a and t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d , w a s c o n f u s e d o r m i s t a k e n i n t h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e a s t o what was t h e Watseca c l a i m and what w e r e t h e Watseca t a i l i n g s , w e can presume t h a t a t some p o i n t h e doubted M r s . Gage's v e r a c i t y and c e a s e d t o r e l y on h e r s t a t e m e n t s a s f a c t . Secondly, t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t P i e r r e had been i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e R o c h e s t e r B a s i n s i n c e 1967. It further d i s c l o s e s t h a t he w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e mining r e p o r t s made by Uuno Sahinen and William Gage around 1939. The S a h i n e n R e p o r t q u a n t i f i e d t h e Watseca t a i l i n g s e x p l i c i t l y and c i t e d f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e Watseca t a i l i n g s which c o u l d o n l y be a r r i v e d a t by i n c l u d i n g t h e tonnage i n b o t h t h e upper t a i l i n g s and t h e lower t a i l i n g s . The Gage R e p o r t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y e n l i g h t e n i n g , a s Gage r e p o r t s t h a t t h e two t a i l i n g s dumps i n t h e b a s i n w e r e on Watseca ~ i n i n g Co. p r o p e r t y . S i n c e t h e company and McCune have i d e n t i c a l i n t e r e s t s , t h e r e i s evidence t h a t P i e r r e w a s a t l e a s t part i a l l y aware of t h e e x t e n t of Watseca ownership. Based on t h e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l and c o n s i d e r i n g p i e r r e ' s e x p e r t i s e , we f i n d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o g i v e I n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 0 . A p p e l l a n t f u r t h e r asserts t h a t t h e two i n s t r u c t i o n s s e t o u t above c o n t a i n c o n f l i c t i n g l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s . agree. W e dis- he body of t h i s a p p e a l c e n t e r s around e l e m e n t s of "knowledge" and " r e l i a n c e . " I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 9 , t o which t h e r e was no o b j e c t i o n , d e a l s s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h knowledge and r e l i a n c e . Although I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20 i n c l u d e s r e f e r - ences t o o t h e r l e g a l theories, t h e question it ultimately a s k s t h e j u r y i s , " d i d P i e r r e have knowledge of McCune's interests?" Obviously, i f t h e j u r y found he d i d have knowl- e d g e , t h e r e c o u l d b e no good f a i t h r e l i a n c e . Therefore, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s were n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t . When d e t e r m i n i n g whether j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s are p r o p e r l y given o r refused, t h i s Court considers t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y and r e v i e w them i n l i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e adduced. B r o t h e r s v. Town of V i r g i n i a C i t y ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 352, 558 P.2d 464. This Court has r u l e d t h a t where t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , t a k e n a s a whole, s t a t e t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e case, a p a r t y cannot claim r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r a s t o t h e g i v i n g of c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n s . Frank v. Hudson ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 140 Mont. 480, 3 7 3 P.2d 951; B r o t h e r s v . Town of V i r g i n i a C i t y , s u p r a . W e conclude t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n , i n c l u d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. 20, w e r e s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t evidence. I t was not error for the trial court t o s u b m i t b o t h I n s t r u c t i o n Nos. 1 9 and 20 t o t h e j u r y f o r consideration. A s t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t , w e a r e g u i d e d by w e l l - s e t t l e d l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s , a r e m i n d f u l t h a t t h e j u r y i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e and c o n s i d e r t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s . Thus, i n examining t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e , w e u n d e r t a k e o u r r e v i e w i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e - We v a i l i n g p a r t y , and we presume t h e f i n d i n g s and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e c o r r e c t . Mont. Lumby v. Doetch ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - 600 P.2d 200, 202, 36 St.Rep. 1684, 1687, c i t i n g H e l l i c k s o n v . B a r r e t t Mobile Home T r a n s p o r t , I n c . 1 6 1 Mont. 455, 459, 507 P.2d 523, 525. (1973), F u r t h e r , we w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r view of t h e e v i d e n c e f o r t h a t of t h e j u r y . When t h e e v i d e n c e f u r n i s h e s r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e j u r y w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d . Adami v . Murphy ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 118 Mont. 172, 1 7 9 , 164 P.2d 150. D i r e c t e d by t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s w e a f f i r m t h e j u r y v e r dict. A s d i s c u s s e d above, t h e j u r y c o u l d p r o p e r l y i n f e r from t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e between t h e p a r t i e s , t h e 1967 b u s i - n e s s d e a l i n g s and P i e r r e ' s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e Gage and S a h i n e n R e p o r t s t h a t a p p e l l a n t had n o t i c e of t h e McCune i n t e r e s t s and, t h e r e f o r e , d i d n o t r e l y on M r s . Gage's claims. The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e v e r d i c t and t h e j udgmen t . Affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.