KINJERSKI v LAMEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 JOHN KINJERSKI , Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsFRITZ LAYEY, individually, et al., Defendants and Respondents, -vs- ANNA KINJERSKI, ~ h i r dParty Defendant and Appellant. .1 from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Robert Holter, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Morrison, Jonkel, Kemmis Montana Rossbach, Missoula, & For Respondents: Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: August 13, 1981 OCT 2 9 I#n M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. J o h n K i n j e r s k i b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n May o f 1 9 7 8 t o r e c o v e r 49 h e a d o f cows p u r c h a s e d from d e f e n d a n t s as e v i d e n c e d b y a w r i t t e n b i l l of sale. Following a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s , p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t and we remanded f o r new t r i a l . K i n j e r s k i v. 7 8 2 , 36 S t . R e p . 2316. Lamey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , A new Mont . 6 0 4 P.2d t r i a l w a s held on October 21, 1980 a n d j u d g m e n t on t h e v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f , who now a p p e a l s from t h e j u d g m e n t and t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . F r i t z Lamey was t h e p r e s i d e n t o f P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch, Inc., a c a t t l e r a n c h i n g o p e r a t i o n n e a r E u r e k a , Montana. On O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 6 7 , K i n j e r s k i and Lamey e x e c u t e d a w r i t t e n b i l l o f s a l e f o r 1 3 1 head o f Hereford c a t t l e f o r $59,000. The c a t t l e were f u r t h e r s p e c i f i e d to be 8 0 cows, 3 1 b u l l s and 20 c a l v e s . I t is uncon- t e s t e d t h a t t h e b u l l s , t h e c a l v e s , and 3 1 o f t h e 8 0 cows were d e l i v e r e d to K i n j e r s k i . I t is t h e f a t e o f t h e 49 r e m a i n i n g cows w h i c h is i n d i s p u t e . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e b i l l of s a l e , K i n j e r s k i a n d Lamey became b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r s i n a new c o r p o r a t i o n known as K & L Livestock, I n c . f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r a i s i n g and s e l l i n g r e g i s t e r e d Hereford cattle. The new c o r p o r a t i o n p u r c h a s e d c a t t l e f r o m b o t h t h e P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch and K i n j e r s k i . During t h e s h o r t l i f e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , c a t t l e b e l o n g i n g to K i n j e r s k i , Lamey, P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch and K & L L i v e s t o c k were commingled a n d m a i n t a i n e d t o g e t h e r on P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch p r o p e r t y . I n A p r i l , 1978, a f t e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of K Inc., & L Livestock, K i n j e r s k i made demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f 49 o f t h e cows r e f e r r e d to i n t h e b i l l of sale. Lamey r e f u s e d , s t a t i n g t h a t h e d i d n o t h a v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e cows. This lawsuit resulted. The f i r s t t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n a v e r d i c t and j u d g m e n t f o r d e f e n d a n t s , b u t upon a p p e a l w e remanded f o r a new t r i a l b a s e d o n v i o l a t i o n s of the par01 evidence r u l e . K i n j e r s k i v . Lamey, supra. Upon r e m a n d , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e p a r t i a l l y g r a n t e d a m o t i o n b y p l a i n t i f f f o r summary j u d g m e n t , stating : " [TIh e C o u r t now d e c i d e s t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s owe t o s a i d p l a i n t i f f s and T h i r d P a r t y D e f e n d a n t s c e r t a i n cows, b u t is u n a b l e a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e which cows or t h e i r offspring. T h a t q u e s t i o n is l e f t f o r d e t e r mination i n t h i s matter." A t t h e new t r i a l e v i d e n c e was a d d u c e d showing t h a t a l i s t o f t a t t o o numbers o f c a t t l e was s u b m i t t e d w i t h t h e b i l l o f s a l e t o t h e F i r s t N o r t h w e s t e r n Bank o f K a l i s p e l l as c o l l a t e r a l f o r Kinjerskil s loan. The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r showed t h a t a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t l i s t o f t a t t o o numbers a c c o m p a n i e d t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s action. Lamey t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t h a v e p o s s e s s i o n o f a n y o f ~ i n j e r s k i ' s c a t t l e i n A p r i l , 1 9 7 8 when demand w a s made. The c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y w i t h a s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r y form w h i c h was t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . I n per- t i n e n t p a r t , t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were: " 1 ) Did F r i t z Lamey or P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch, I n c . h a v e a n y c a t t l e b e l o n g i n g to t h e p l a i n t i f f i n A p r i l , 1978? "Answer: (Circle one) Yes " 2 ) I f t h e a n s w e r to Number 1 i s No, d o n o t proceed any f u r t h e r . I f t h e a n s w e r to Number 1 i s Y e s , how many c a t t l e d i d F r i t z Lamey o r hilli ips C r e e k Ranch, I n c . h a v e , and what was t h e i r value?" The j u r y a n s w e r e d t h e f i r s t i n t e r r o g a t o r y i n t h e n e g a t i v e and l e f t t h e rest o f t h e q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e directions . Judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f . K i n j e r s k i a r g u e s t h a t t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w o f t h e case as d e t e r m i n e d by K i n j e r s k i v . Lamey, s u p r a , and b y t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t judge. Kinjerski f u r t h e r contends t h a t t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , v e r d i c t and judgment were c o n t r a r y to t h e l a w of Montana c o n c e r n i n g a b u y e r ' s r e m e d i e s f o r f a i l u r e of t h e s e l l e r t o deliver. S e c t i o n 30-2-711, MCA. The u s e o f a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t is a u t h o r i z e d b y Rule 4 9 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., and i s l e f t to t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W h i l e it is w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n to s t r u c t u r e t h e f o r m and f r a m e t h e q u e s t i o n s o f a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , t h e i n t e r r o g a - t o r i e s m u s t be a d e q u a t e to e n a b l e t h e j u r y to d e t e r m i n e t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l t o judgment. Mont. 1 7 6 , 346 P.2d G l i c k v. Knoll (1959)t 136 9 8 7 ; Coburn C a t t l e C o . v . Small ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 3 5 Mont. 2 8 8 , 8 8 P. 9 5 3 ; 5A Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e § 49.03[2]. d e t e r m i n i n g t h e adequacy of t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , In the f e d e r a l c o u r t s consider the following f a c t o r s : " ( i ) w h e t h e r , when r e a d a s a whole and i n conjunction with the general charge the interrogatories adequately presented the contested issues t o t h e j u r y ; ( i i ) w h e t h e r t h e s u b m i s s i o n of t h e i s s u e s t o t h e j u r y was ' f a i r ' ; a n d ( i i i ) w h e t h e r t h e ' u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t ' were c l e a r l y submitted t o the jury." D r e i l i n g v. G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c C o . ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 1 1 F.2d 7 6 8 , 774. ( C i t a t i o n s omitted. ) When m e a s u r e d a g a i n s t t h e a b o v e s t a n d a r d s , t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t i n t h i s case i s i n a d e q u a t e . the plaintiff The c e n t r a l i s s u e , w h e t h e r i n f a c t o b t a i n e d d e l i v e r y o f t h e c a t t l e which he h a d b a r g a i n e d f o r , was n o t s u b m i t t e d to t h e j u r y by t h e interrogatories. The j u r y found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t h a v e a n y o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c a t t l e on t h e d a t e o f demand. The a n s w e r to t h a t q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , is n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f a l l t h e i s s u e s i n t h e case. I t is n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e j u r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t h a v e t h e c a t t l e b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f had a l r e a d y r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r y or b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t s o l d them a t m a r k e t . If o p e r a t i n g u n d e r t h e l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y , t h e j u r y w a s p r e c l u d e d by t h e d i r e c t i o n s i n t h e s e c o n d i n t e r r o g a t o r y from d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l u e o f t h e c a t t l e and t h e d a m a g e s , i f a n y , s u f f e r e d by plaintiff. I n o r d e r t o a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r t h e i s s u e s i n t h e case, t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t s h o u l d h a v e i n c l u d e d , i n t e r a l i a , q u e s t i o n s conc e r n i n g w h a t happened to t h e c a t t l e a f t e r t h e b i l l o f s a l e was e x e c u t e d , which l i s t o f t a t t o o numbers c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e a n i m a l s w h i c h were t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e b i l l o f s a l e , w h e t h e r p l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r y o f t h e 49 cows a f t e r e x e c u t i o n of t h e b i l l o f s a l e and i f n o t , w h a t damages were d u e to him. We find t h a t t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were f a t a l l y d e f i c i e n t and w e remand f o r a new t r i a l . W e n o t e f o r g u i d a n c e o f c o u r t and c o u n s e l o n remand t h a t o u r p r i o r o p i n i o n did n o t r e q u i r e t h e e x c l u s i o n of any e v i d e n c e , o r a l or w r i t t e n , o f e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e b i l l of sale. The p a r 0 1 e v i d e n c e r u l e o p e r a t e s to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e o f a g r e e m e n t s o f t h e p a r t i e s p r i o r to o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h t h e e x e c u t i o n of a f i n a l w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n of t h e agreement. S e c t i o n 28-2-904, MCA. E v i d e n c e of t h e l i s t s of t a t - t o o numbers was a d m i s s i b l e t o e x p l a i n t o which s p e c i f i c cows t h e b i l l of sale r e f e r r e d . S e c t i o n 28-2-905(2) , MCA. F u r t h e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was i n e r r o r . I n o r d e r t o d e c i d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s owed t o p l a i n - t i f f c e r t a i n cows, t h e t r i a l c o u r t had to r e s o l v e d i s p u t e d f a c t u a l i s s u e s which s h o u l d h a v e b e e n l e f t f o r t h e j u r y . R e v e r s e d and remanded f o r a new t r i a l . C h i e f ~ ut isc e W e concur:

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.