GRAHAM v CLARKS FORK NAT L BANK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 82-136 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O MONTANA F H F 1983 D A GRAHAM, E N P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vsCLARKS FORK NATIONAL EANK, Defendant and Respondent. A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f C a r b o n , The H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Morrow, S e d i v y , O l s o n & Eck; Thomas O l s o n , Bozeman, Montana Swandal, D o u g l a s s & Swandal; K e n t R . D o u g l a s s , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana For Respondent: B r i d g e r Law O f f i c e ; J o s e p h Mudd, E r i d g e r , Montana Moulton, E e l l i n g h a m , Longo & M a t h e r , B i l l i n g s , Plontana S u b m i t t e d on E r i e f s : Decided: MAY 1 9 1983 Clerk April 15, 1983 May 1.9, 1 9 8 3 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Court. Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e O p i n i o n of T h i s a p p e a l comes from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of J u d i c i a l District i n and f o r the Thirteenth t h e County of Carbon Plaintiff commenced t h i s a c t i o n s e e k i n g damages f o r c o n v e r s i o n of I n 1 9 7 8 - Dean Graham p u r c h a s e d n i n e t e e n head cattle. in-law, of cattle. registered The c a t t l e were p a s t u r e d on l a n d owned by h i s t h e n sonMarvin Heyd. F o r k N a t i o n a l Bank, bank, the consequently, Heyd a l s o owned c a t t l e ; s e c u r e d by C l a r k s Heyd c o u l d n o t meet h i s o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e t h e bank t o o k p o s s e s s i o n of and by m i s t a k e , a l s o t o o k G r a h a m ' s c a t t l e . Heyd's cattle, Graham a l l e g e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h e bank had p o s s e s s i o n , h i s c a t t l e l o s t w e i g h t . Graham a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t h i s c a t t l e were i m p r o p e r l y p a s t u r e d w i t h b u l l s owned by Heyd, and a s a r e s u l t he was f o r c e d t o abandon a program of a r t i f i c i a l i n s e m i n a t i o n . Graham b r o u g h t s e e k i n g damages suit against i n excess of the bank $200,000. alleging During conversion, the trial the c o u r t r e f u s e d G r a h a m ' s o f f e r e d t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l u e of a h y p o t h e t i c a l purebred angus c a l f crop. Also, the court granted t h e bank a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on G r a h a m ' s c l a i m of f u t u r e damages and e x e m p l a r y damages. The j u r y The D i s t r i c t aside Court set the r e t u r n e d a n award of $ 5 3 , 4 7 5 . jury award as excessive and g r a n t e d a new t r i a l l i m i t e d t o t h e i s s u e of damages a r i s i n g from t h e wrongful conversion. Graham a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t . T h i s Court h e l d t h a t (1) t h e g r a n t i n g of a new t r i a l was p r o p e r , ( 2 ) on r e t r i a l , Graham s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d t o o f f e r e v i d e n c e of f u t u r e c a l f c r o p l o s s e s , and ( 3 ) t h e c l a i m of e x e m p l a r y damage s h o u l d be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . Graham v. C l a r k s Fork N a t i o n a l Bank ( 1 9 8 1 ) , P.2d 7 1 8 , 38 S t . R e p . 1140. Mont . - The c a s e was r e t r i e d and t h e awarded Graham $ 2 , 2 0 0 a c t u a l damages p l u s c o s t s . , 631 jury Graham a p p e a l s again. The a p p e l l a n t h a s r a i s e d two i s s u e s , b o t h of which stem from e v i d e n c e which was a d m i t t e d c o n c e r n i n g M a r v i n H e y d ' s character. First, appellant argues that admission of the evidence was in c l e a r v i o l a t i o n of t h i s C o u r t ' s mandate i n o u r f i r s t o p i n i o n ; and s e c o n d , by a d m i t t i n g t h e e v i d e n c e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i g n o r e d t h e l a w of conversion. The c o n t e s t e d evidence p l a c e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e 874 p a g e t r a n s c r i p t . appears in several Appellant points to n i n e t e e n s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s where e v i d e n c e was a l l o w e d c o n c e r n i n g Marvin Heyd's character; m o s t of financial responsibility. which and, character of associated appellant claims was s i n c e Heyd was h i s s o n - i n - l a w , he was that there with denied admits Appellant on h i s l a c k of A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s t h a t s i n c e Heyd was t o pasture his c a t t l e , Heyd focused a never a result, impartial trial. himself. fair and was the As an o b j e c t i o n t o the a d m i s s i o n of a n y of t h e c o n t e s t e d e v i d e n c e . I n d e e d , much of t h e evidence trial was illicited while appellant's questioning the various witnesses. alleged error, Of t h e n i n e t e e n i n s t a n c e s of before this a p p e l l a n t claims t h a t the i s s u e is p r o p e r l y Nonetheless, Court v. via the Halldorson "plain error" doctrine discussed ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 5 Mont. 170, 573 P.2d where t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t a b s e n t o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l , may c o n s i d e r was t w e l v e were b r o u g h t a b o u t by t h e a p p e l l a n t him- self. Halldorson counsel issues relating to the fundamental in 169, t h i s Court r i g h t s of the The p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s c a s e . In parties. H - alldorson, we elaborated on the doctrine by stating : " a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s b e f o r e them h a v e b e e n d e n i e d s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and when t h a t h a s o c c u r r e d we c a n , w i t h i n o u r sound d i s c r e t i o n , c o n s i d e r whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s d e p r i v e d a l i t i g a n t of a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l , e v e n t h o u g h no o b j e c t i o n was made to the conduct during the trial." H a l l d o r s o n , 1 7 5 Mont. a t 1 7 4 , 573 P.2d a t 1 7 2 . W have c a r e f u l l y reviewed e upset the verdict substantial justice. af f irm. and He the record judgment. and see no r e a s o n t o Appellant was not denied received a f a i r t r i a l , accordingly, we W concur: e Chief J u s t i v e - Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: I dissent. This Court should reverse the judgment in the District Court, and remand the cause for a new trial limited strictly to the issue of damages. There have now been two district court trials of this cause. After the first trial, the District Court granted a new trial, limited strictly to the issue of damages. On appeal, we affirmed the grant of the new trial limited to the issue of damages, and specified that additional factors relating to damages should be consid-ered in the next trial. When the next trial occurred, the issues were not limited to damages. It is on that basis that the plaintiff now appeals, and on which the plaintiff ought to be sustained. When we affirmed the grant of a new trial limited to the issue of dama.ges, that holding became the law of the case. When the District Court disregarded the law of the case, and expanded the second trial to include evidence of the character of a nonparty, it abandoned the law of the case, and the District Court should be checked in that abandonment. In explaining the law of the case, this Court has held: "The rule is well established and long adhered to in this state that where, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in trial court and upon subsequent appeals; and this although upon its subsequent consideration the Supreme Court may be clearly of opinion that the former decision is It is a final adjudication from erroneous * * * the consequences of which this Court may not depart, nor the parties relieve themselves (citing Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railroad cases) " Company (1930), 86 Mont. 78, 281 P. 913, 914. See also Fiscus v. Beartooth Elec. Cooperative (1979), 180 Mont. 434, 591 P.2d 196. . This is a case where the bank seized Graham's cows for another person's debts in spite of the fact that Graham's cows carried brands which established their ownership and which brands were disregarded by the bank when the cows were seized. When Graham attempted to recover his cows, the bank refused to divulge their location and turned his cows into pasture with 6 unregistered bulls. Thus the bank destroyed the breeding program that Graham had established for his By expanding the second District Court trial, as it herd. did, the District Court allowed the bank to remove the "black hat" from its head, and put it on the head of a debtor, a factor that had no relationship to the damages sustained by Graham. Contrary to what is contained in the majority opinion, the holding of this Court in Halldorson v. Halldorson (19771, 175 Mont. 170, 573 P.2d 169, commands that we return this cause for a proper trial limited to the issue of damages sustained by Graham. The verdict which the majority affirming here is manifestly insufficient. is
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.
