NOVCO v GRAINGER

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-19 I N THE SUPREME COURT 0 3 THE STATE O F MONTANA 1982 NOVCO, a Corp., P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsHAROLD L. GRAINGER and HOWARD G. GRAINGEK, D e f e n d a n t s and Respondents, and HAROLD L. GiiAINGER AND HOWARD G. GRAINGER, Thir.d-Party E l a i n f i f f s and Bespondei3ks, ED NOViS, i n d i v i d u a l l y , Third-Party Defendant and Respondent, and SUNSET CARBURETOR AND ELECTRIC, I N C . , Third-Party Appeal from: a Montana C o r p . , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade, The HonorabLe John M. McCarvel, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : E. Eugene A t h e r t o n , K a l i s p e l i , Montana Fos Respondents: P a t r i c k M. S p r i n g e r , K a l s i p e l l , Montana J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t & Weaver; Alexander B l e w e t t , 11, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: JuL 2 9 1982 May 2 7 , 1982 & gg m1 Mr. 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 o f the Court. P l a i n t i f f Novco b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s H a r o l d G r a i n g e r and Howard G r a i n g e r i n two c o u n t s : was a n a c t i o n on an open a c c o u n t f o r $37,557.58 Count I f o r auto- m o t i v e p a r t s a l l e g e d l y d e l i v e r e d by Novco t o S u n s e t C a r b u r e tor and Electric, Inc.; Count was I1 an action against H a r o l d G r a i n g e r i n d i v i d u a l l y t o c o l l e c t on a bad c h e c k f o r $30,000 drawn on t h e a c c o u n t of S u n s e t A u t o m o t i v e , I n c . , signed by Douglas Wolf and Harold Grainger, upon and which G r a i n g e r i s a l l e g e d t o be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e b e c a u s e h e knew or s h o u l d h a v e known t h e r e were i n s u f f i c i e n t funds i n t h e a c c o u n t t o t h e c r e d i t o f S u n s e t A u t o m o t i v e when h e d r e w and d e l i v e r e d t h e check, Defendants Grainger f a i l e d t o appear their d e f a u l t was entered, and a n s w e r and T h i s d e f a u l t was s u b s e q u e n t l y s e t a s i d e and t h e G r a i n g e r s f i l e d a n a n s w e r , a c o u n t e r c l a i m and a t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t . The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t was t h a t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , a c o r p o r a t i o n , and n o t t h e G r a i n g e r s p e r s o n a l l y , was t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f Novco. T h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., moved f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t denied. This appeal followed. The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l is t h e r i g h t o f third party d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , t o a change of v e n u e from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Cascade County t o the F l a t h e a d County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Plaintiff Carburetor and Novco and Electric, third Inc., party agree defendant that the Sunset original defendants, their Harold right to Grainger challenge f a i l u r e t o s o move. t o r and E l e c t r i c , right, and venue Howard Grainger, of action the waived by their Third p a r t y defendant Sunset Carbure- Inc., c o n t e n d s t h a t i t h a s an i n d e p e n d e n t a s a t h i r d party defendant, t o a change of venue of t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n b e c a u s e u n d e r R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., is entitled to assert against the plaintiff any it defenses t h a t d e f e n d a n t s G r a i n g e r might have a s s e r t e d . W n o t e t h a t Montana s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o v e n u e cone tain no specific provision regarding the rights of third p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s t o o b j e c t t o v e n u e . R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., d o e s p r o v i d e t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t may a s s e r t a g a i n s t the plaintiff d e f e n s e s which t h e t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f to the p l a i n t i f f ' s has claim, but t h i s provision does not apply t o m o t i o n s f o r a change of venue. T h e r e a r e two b a s i c r e a s o n s why t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a change of venue. First, C a r b u r e t o r is n o t a p r o p e r p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . Sunset The Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e do n o t p e r m i t a t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n tiff to implead a s a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t a p a r t y who i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g and who i s o r may be liable to the original plaintiff. R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., o n l y p e r m i t s i m p l e a d e r o f a p a r t y who " i s o r may be l i a b l e " to the third party p l a i n t i f f . S e c o n d l y , we h o l d i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e of o b j e c t i n g t o venue i n t h e main a c t i o n is a p e r s o n a l p r i v i l e g e b e l o n g i n g t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e main a c t i o n a l o n e and n o t t o a t h i r d party defendant. 179 F.Supp. 363, proceeding growing Brandt v, It Olson (N.D. Iowa, E.D. is g e n e r a l l y held t h a t a t h i r d out of the same subject matter 1959), party as the main action and involving ancillary to the principal t h a t of Co. Imports, (N.D. Inc. 405 v. 499 A. J. Cunningham F.Supp. 5; Pa. 339; 1963), 33 Wisc. Bonath F.R.D. v. Globig 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 8 4 F.Supp. T r a n s p o r t Corp. (S.D. Freight N.Y. 530; v. Pkg. 1445; Corp. (S.D. Greene & v. Wright & Seafood (S.D. N.Y. Inc. v. 517; Thompson N.Y. 1 9 6 7 ) , 43 Inc, (W.D. Co. (E.D. united A i r 757. Miller, Pa, Lines See a l s o , section s e c t i o n 14.28 [ 2 ] ; s e c t i o n 1 0 0 ALR2d 6 9 3 , 7 0 8 , a n d c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . A£ £ i rmed, . Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e is Gust Lines, 1 9 3 9 ) , 29 F.Supp. 3 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , 9 , Annot., 1092; Industries, Morrell F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , facts Goodyear T i r e & 1 9 7 4 ) , 385 F.Supp. Aetna 260; v. F.Supp. United A r t i s t s T h e a t r e C i r c u i t , I n c , F.R.D. same i t s v e n u e r e s t s upon Season-All M e r c h a n t S h i p p e r s (W.D. v. the Pelinski 1980), Ill. of a c t i o n and the principal action. Rubber 1975), many -

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.