ENSLEY v MURPHY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-174 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F ALVIN R. ENSLEY, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, MICHAEL MURPHY, a/k/a PHILLIP ERNEST K R I N E R , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth 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 M i s s o u l a Honorable John Henson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : T i p p , Hoven, S k j e l s e t & F r i z z e l l , M i s s o u l a , Montana Thomas F r i z z e l l , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent: Theodore J. Cowan, M i s s o u l a , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : November 5,,L982 Decided: F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1983 M r . J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the F o l l o w i n g a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ordered that plaintiff t a k e t e m p o r a r y p o s s e s s i o n of 1 9 6 5 Kenworth d i e s e l t r u c k . P l a i n t i f £/respondent defendant's Defendant a p p e a l s . initiated this action by filing a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t of t h e S t a t e o f W a s h i n g t o n i n and f o r t h e County o f King, a l l e g i n g b r e a c h of m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t o r t of of an oral Washington agreement in June outrage. between 1981, contract, The c o m p l a i n t arose o u t plaintiff whereby replevin, and plaintiff defendant loaned in defendant $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 a t 24 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t t o p u r c h a s e a 1 9 6 5 Kenworth d i e s e l truck and to was defendant grant plaintiff an oral security i n t e r e s t i n t h e t r u c k and r e p a y t h e l o a n a t t h e r a t e of $ 5 0 0 p e r month. The c e r t i f i c a t e o f t i t l e was i n a p p e l l a n t M u r p h y ' s name, and t h e r e was no l e a s e h o l d r e c o r d e d . P l a i n t i f f a l s o a l l e g e s he was t o r e c e i v e t h e g r e a t e r o f $350 p e r month or 1 0 p e r c e n t of t h e defendant's None o f net receipts from h a u l i n g t h e a g r e e m e n t was i n w r i t i n g . f r e i g h t with the truck. Defendant paid p l a i n t i f f $ 1 , 0 0 0 and t h e n made no o t h e r p a y m e n t s . When plaintiff Missoula, Montana, Judicial District, breach outrage. of located defendant plaintiff i n and contract, filed and a defendant's complaint f o r t h e C o u n t y of replevin, in truck the Missoula, misrepresentation T h i s c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d o n J a n u a r y 2 0 , in Fourth alleging and 1982. tort of Along w i t h t h e complaint, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a motion r e q u i r i n g defendant t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e why a n i n j u n c t i o n p e n d e n t e l i t e s h o u l d n o t be i s s u e d r e s t r a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t from r e m o v i n g t h e t r u c k from i t s l o c a t i o n i n M i s s o u l a d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h i s a c t i o n , and f u r t h e r f o r a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e why p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d n o t o b t a i n t e m p o r a r y p o s s e s s i o n of t h e t r u c k pending t h e outcome of t h i s action. Following t h e show c a u s e h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 , and F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered the p l a i n t i f f t a k e immediate temporary p o s s e s s i o n of the t r u c k pending t h e outcome of t h i s action. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d p l a i n t i f f to p a y a l l o u t s t a n d i n g t o w i n g and s t o r a g e c h a r g e s o n t h e t r u c k and to p o s t a $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 bond to i n s u r e t h e r e t u r n of t h e t r u c k i n t h e e v e n t of a n a d v e r s e r u l i n g . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l o w e d p l a i n t i f f to o p e r a t e t h e t r u c k to m i t i g a t e his damages and to a p p l y $500 o f o u t s t a n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n and any p r o f i t s defendants' t o pay any amounts o v e r $500 t o t h e c o u r t t o be h e l d p e n d i n g c l e r k of to t h e outcome of D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s t h i s action. order claiming the o r d e r is a p p e a l a b l e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e l ( b ) , M.R.App.Civ.P. for the r e a s o n t h a t t h e o r d e r g r a n t s a n i n j u n c t i o n and d i r e c t s t h e d e l i v e r y , t r a n s f e r o r s u r r e n d e r of p r o p e r t y . The i s s u e s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. Whether a issuing 2. the District preliminary Court injunction abused discretion its contrary to Montana in law. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by e n t e r i n g a p r e l i m i - n a r y i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t making f i n d i n g s o f f a c t or c o n c l u s i o n s o f law or giving any s t a t e m e n t of its reasons for granting the injunction. A l t h o u g h two i s s u e s were r a i s e d b y a p p e l l a n t , t h e case c a n be d i s p o s e d of by answering t h e f i r s t i s s u e by v a c a t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n of g r a n t i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . W h i l e a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n may be issued t o protect the p a r t i e s f r o m damage d u r i n g p e n d e n c y o f t h e s u i t and m a i n t a i n t h e status quo pending m e r i t s , P o r t e r v. K P.2d 836, quo. It final & of the S P a r t n e r s h i p ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- here the court's determined determination cause Mont on . the , 627 o r d e r f a i l e d to p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s substantive property rights and did not f o l l o w o u r s t a t u t e s and r u l e s d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t to i s s u e f i n d - i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f injunction. See 2 7 - 1 9 - 2 0 1 ( 4 ) , law at the MCA, t i m e he issued the see R u l e 5 2 (a), M.R.Civ.P. The p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n is v a c a t e d and t h e c a u s e r e t u r n e d t o the District Court. We covcur: Chief Justice Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell: I concur i n t h e r e s u l t , Y Chief J u s t i c e Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d i s s e n t i n g : I n m o p i n i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a s h i o n e d a n e q u i t a b l e y remedy which was n o t an i n j u n c t i o n , g i n c e t h e remedy was n o t injunctive 3 fie c o u r t ' s o r d e r i s n o t a p p e a l a b l e , and I would t h e r e f o r e n o t e n t e r t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s m a t t e r .

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.