Hillstrom v. Gosnay

No. 79-102
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980

ROBERT A. HILLSTROM and
PATRICIA HILLSTROM, husband
and wife,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,

MAURICE GOSNAY and PAMELA GOSNAY,
husband and wife, and JEREMI VILLANO,
Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin,
Honorable W. W. Lessley,Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Moore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling, Bozeman, Montana
Mark D. Refling argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondents:
Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers and Lineberger,
Bozeman, Montana
J. Robert Planalp argued, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: May 23, 1980
Decided: JUL 1 -
Filed: dUL 1 - 1 0
-9 4
-.
Mr. ~ustice
Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
his i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

of t h e ~ i g h t e e n t h u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County, t h e
J

Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y p r e s i d i n g . P l a i n t i f f s Hillstrom

brought t h i s a c t i o n f o r a breach of c o n t r a c t a g a i n s t defen-

d a n t V i l l a n o and f o r a n i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t

a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s Gosnay. P l a i n t i f f s sought s p e c i f i c
performance of t h e i r c o n t r a c t o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , a c t u a l

damages, and f o r p u n i t i v e damages. The D i s t r i c t Court,.

s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , found t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had a v a l i d

and e n f o r c e a b l e c o n t r a c t w i t h d e f e n d a n t V i l l a n o f o r t h e

p u r c h a s e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y and t h a t d e f e n d a n t V i l l a n o b r e a c h e d

the contract. The c o u r t f u r t h e r found t h a t d e f e n d a n t s
Gosnay d i d n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t . The c o u r t
o r d e r e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t V i l l a n o s p e c i f i c a l l y perform t h e

c o n t r a c t with t h e p l a i n t i f f s b u t denied p l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t

f o r p u n i t i v e damages. Defendants b r i n g t h i s a p p e a l .

The r e a l p r o p e r t y which i s t h e s u b j e c t matter of t h i s

a c t i o n i s a t e n - a c r e t r a c t of l a n d l o c a t e d i n G a l l a t i n

County, Montana, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s " T r a c t B."

Defendant-appellant D r . Jeremi Villano i s a medical doctor

whose employment d u t i e s a t t h e t i m e of t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y
r e q u i r e d h e r t o f r e q u e n t l y be away from h e r home i n Bozeman,

Montana, f o r one and two week p e r i o d s . V i l l a n o i s t h e owner

and s e l l e r o f T r a c t B i n t h i s a c t i o n . H e r r e a l t o r i s Joyce

St r a h n .

From August 1977 t o August 1978, no o f f e r s were r e c e i v e d
f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f T r a c t B a l t h o u g h t h e p r o p e r t y had been

advertised for sale. On J u l y 31, 1978, Maurice and Pamela
Gosnay, r e s i d e n t s of L i b e r t y , M i s s o u r i , who own a v a c a t i o n

home i n t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon n e a r Bozeman, s i g n e d a n o p t i o n
t o p u r c h a s e T r a c t A , a t e n - a c r e p a r c e l a d j o i n i n g T r a c t B.
LeRoy s p a i n a g r e e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e Gosnays i n o b t a i n i n g

Tract B also. S p a i n l a t e r t e l e p h o n e d S t r a h n and informed

h e r t h a t h e had a p a r t y i n t e r e s t e d i n Tract B and asked

S t r a h n what t h e commission was and whether o r n o t i t would

b e s p l i t w i t h him. S t r a h n informed S p a i n t h a t t h e commis-

s i o n was 8 p e r c e n t and t h a t i t w a s t h e i r p o l i c y t o s p l i t t h e

commission w i t h t h e b u y e r ' s b r o k e r .

After s e v e r a l r e j e c t e d o f f e r s , Spain telephoned Strahn

o n August 2 5 , 1978, and informed h e r t h a t h i s c l i e n t s ( t h e

Gosnays) w e r e w i l l i n g t o pay $54,500 f o r T r a c t B. Villano

a g r e e d t o a c c e p t $54,500 b u t s t a t e d t h a t s h e would r a t h e r

have $55,000. Because V i l l a n o w a s l e a v i n g town t h e n e x t

day t o go t o Sundance, Wyoming, and b e c a u s e S t r a h n wanted

something i n w r i t i n g , S t r a h n p r e p a r e d two e a r n e s t money

r e c e i p t s , one w i t h a s a l e s p r i c e of $54,500 and t h e o t h e r

w i t h a sales p r i c e o f $55,000. Villano signed both e a r n e s t

money agreements i n S t r a h n ' s o f f i c e on August 2 6 , 1978,

b e f o r e l e a v i n g f o r Wyoming. S t r a h n conveyed b o t h o f f e r s

over t h e telephone t o Spain.

The n e x t d a y , August 2 7 , 1978, P a t r i c i a L. H i l l s t r o m

t e l e p h o n e d S t r a h n and informed h e r t h a t s h e and h e r husband,

who r e s i d e i n M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota, w e r e i n t e r e s t e d i n

p u r c h a s i n g T r a c t B. Mrs. H i l l s t r o m s t a t e d t h a t h e r husband,

R o b e r t A. H i l l s t r o m , was a lawyer and r e a l e s t a t e b:roker and

t h a t he would c a l l S t r a h n c o n c e r n i n g Tract B.

S t r a h n t e l e p h o n e d V i l l a n o i n Wyoming and informed h e r

H i l l s t r o m was coming i n t o h e r of £ i c e t o d i s c u s s t h e p u r c h a s e

o f T r a c t B. During t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n , S t r a h n a l s o informed
V i l l a n o t h a t t h e Gosnays would p u r c h a s e T r a c t B f o r $54,500.

S t r a h n a d v i s e d V i l l a n o s h e c o u l d withdraw h e r w r i t t e n o f f e r
t o s e l l t o t h e Gosnays b e c a u s e no e a r n e s t money had been

r e c e i v e d and t h e w r i t t e n o f f e r s had n o t been p i c k e d up o r

s i g n e d by them. A f t e r b e i n g a d v i s e d of t h i s , V i l l a n o a g r e e d

t o withdraw h e r o f f e r t o t h e Gosnays t o s e e what t h e H i l l -

s t r o m s would o f f e r . S t r a h n t e l e p h o n e d S p a i n and informed

him t h a t V i i l a n o had withdrawn h e r o f f e r t o s e l l T r a c t B t o

t h e Gosnays.

The H i l l s t r o m s m e t w i t h S t r a h n i n h e r o f f i c e on August

28, 1978. They o f f e r e d $ 5 5 , 0 0 0 f o r t h e p r o p e r t y . There-

a f t e r , M r . H i l l s t r o m approached S t r a h n c o n c e r n i n g S t r a h n ' s

s p l i t t i n g t h e r e a l e s t a t e commission w i t h him. It was

d e c i d e d t o r e d u c e t h e s a l e s p r i c e by one-half of t h e com-

m i s s i o n and r e d u c e t h e s t a t e d commission t o 4 p e r c e n t .

After discussing the o f f e r with Villano, Strahn dic-

t a t e d t h e wording of a t e l e g r a m t h a t V i l l a n o w a s t o u s e i n

a c c e p t i n g t h e H i l l s t r o m s ' cf.'fer, t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e ac-

c e p t a n c e h a v i n g been s u g g e s t e d by M r . Hillstrom. Strahn

t o l d V i l l a n o t o go t o t h e t e l e g r a p h o f f i c e and s i g n t h i s

telegram. V i l l a n o informed S t r a h n t h e r e w a s no t e l e g r a p h

o f f i c e i n Sundance, Wyoming, and S t r a h n t o l d V i l l a n o t o send

t h e t e l e g r a m anyway. V i l l a n o t e l e p h o n e d Western Union and

d i c t a t e d t h e t e l e g r a m as s h e was i n s t r u c t e d t o do. The

t e l e g r a m w a s s e n t t o Landmark R e a l E s t a t e , a t t e n t i o n J o y c e

Strahn. It stated:

"PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AS MY WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE
OF THAT OFFER MADE ON MY REAL ESTATE I N THE
GALLATIN CANYON AS PRESENTED T L N M R REALTY
O AD AK
BY ROBERT A. AND PATRICIA L. HILLSTROM ON
AUGUST 28, 1978.

" JEREMI VILLANO MD"

I n a c o m p l a i n t d a t e d September 1 3 , 1978, t h e Gosnays

sued D r . V i l l a n o and Landmark Real E s t a t e ( J o y c e S t r a h n ) i n

a n e f f o r t t o e s t a b l i s h some r i g h t s t o t h e l a n d . Following
n e g o t i a t i o n s conducted t h r o u g h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s ,

v i l l a n o and t h e Gosnays r e a c h e d a n agreement f o r t h e s a l e of

T r a c t B by V i l l a n o t o t h e Gosnays i n a c o n t r a c t d a t e d Octo-

b e r 20, 1978. Under t h i s c o n t r a c t , V i l l a n o a g r e e d t o s e l l

t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e Gosnays f o r t h e p r i c e o f $54,500.

v i l l a n o was n o t r e q u i r e d t o pay any r e a l e s t a t e commissions
o u t of t h i s p r i c e and t h e Gosnays a g r e e d t o h o l d V i l l a n o

h a r m l e s s and indemnify h e r f o r a l l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d d e f e n d -

i n g any l i t i g a t i o n commenced by t h e H i l l s t r o m s .

V i l l a n o gave t h e H i l l s t r o m s n o t i c e of r e s c i s s i o n i n

l e t t e r s d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 8 and October 20, 1978, on t h e grounds

t h a t h e r c o n s e n t was o b t a i n e d by m i s t a k e and f r a u d i n t h a t

s h e b e l i e v e d t h e s a l e s p r i c e t o be $55,000 and had n o t

c o n s e n t e d o r been t o l d t h a t h e r r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t would

s p l i t t h e commission and r e d u c e t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e t o

$52,800. On November 29, 1978, t h e H i l l s t r o m s f i l e d t h i s

a c t i o n a g a i n s t V i l l a n o and t h e Gosnays.

There i s b u t one i s s u e f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t :

Whether t h e t y p e w r i t t e n name "JEREMI VILLANO M " a t t h e
D

bottom o f a t e l e g r a m i s a s u f f i c i e n t s u b s c r i p t i o n t o s a t i s f y

t h e requirements of t h e s t a t u t e of frauds?

A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e r e a r e two b a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t s

o f t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s , s e c t i o n 28-2-903(1) ( d ) , MCA.

A p p e l l a n t s concede t h a t t h e f i r s t r e q u i r e m e n t , t h a t t h e r e b e

some n o t e o r memorandum o f t h e agreement i n w r i t i n g , h a s

been s a t i s f i e d . The second r e q u i r e m e n t , t h a t t h e w r i t i n g b e
s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y t o b e c h a r g e d o r by h i s a g e n t ,

a l l e g e d l y h a s n o t been s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s c a s e . I t i s argued

t h a t t h e t y p e w r i t t e n name "JEREMI VILLANO MD" a t t h e bottom

o f t h e t e l e g r a m i s n o t a s u f f i c i e n t s u b s c r i p t i o n under t h e

s t a t u t e of f r a u d s , which a p p e l l a n t s c l a i m r e q u i r e s a n a c t u a l
 s i g n i n g w i t h o n e ' s own hand. In addition, the s t a t u t e

r e q u i r e s t h a t i f a n agreement i s made by a n a g e n t of t h e

p a r t y t o b e c h a r g e d , t h e a g e n t ' s a u t h o r i t y must be i n w r i t -

i n g and s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y 'LO be charged. Since t h e

t e l e g r a p h company, a s a n a g e n t , was n o t a u t h o r i z e d i n a

s u b s c r i b e d w r i t i n g t o make t h e agreement by " s i g n i n g "

V i l l a n o ' s t y p e w r i t t e n name, a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e

statute was not satisfied. Therefore, t h e Hillstrom-Villano

agreement i s i n v a l i d and v o i d . Secondly, a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e

t h a t V i l l a n o d i d n o t have t h e r e q u i s i t e i n t e n t t o a u t h e n -

t i c a t e t h e t y p e w r i t t e n name "JEREMI VILLANO M " a t t h e
D

bottom of t h e t e l e g r a m a s h e r s i g n a t u r e .

The Montana s t a t u t e of f r a u d s p r o v i d e s :

"What c o n t r a c t s must be i n w r i t i n g . (1) The
f o l l o w i n g agreements a r e i n v a l i d u n l e s s t h e
s a m e o r some n o t e o r memorandum t h e r e o f i s
i n w r i t i n g and s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y t o be
charged o r h i s agent:

" ( d ) An agreement f o r t h e l e a s i n g f o r a l o n g e r
p e r i o d t h a n 1 y e a r o r f o r t h e s a l e of r e a l
p r o p e r t y o r of a n i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . Such
agreement i f made by a n a g e n t of t h e p a r t y
s o u g h t t o be c h a r g e d , i s i n v a l i d u n l e s s t h e
a u t h o r i t y of t h e a g e n t i s i n w r i t i n g and
s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y s o u g h t t o be c h a r g e d . "
S e c t i o n 28-2-903 (1) d ) , MCA.
(

A p p e l l a n t s concede t h a t t h e f i r s t r e q u i r e m e n t of t h e

s t a t u t e , t h a t t h e r e be some n o t e o r memorandum of t h e a g r e e -

ment i n w r i t i n g , h a s been s a t i s f i e d by t h e t e l e g r a m and t h e

" E a r n e s t Money R e c e i p t and Agreement t o S e l l and P u r c h a s e "

w i t h a t t a c h e d documents. A t e l e g r a m may c o n s t i t u t e a s u f -

f i c i e n t w r i t t e n memorandum t o s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of

t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s . Yaggy v. B.V.D. Co. ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 7 N.C.App.

590, 173 S.E.2d 496; 72 Am.Jur.2d S t a t u t e - F r a u d s 9300;
of

37 C.J.S. -
Frauds, S t a t u t e o f ,
 "No p a r t i c u l a r form o f ... instrument i s
n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s t i t u t e a memorandum o r n o t e
i n w r i t i n g u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s ...
I t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t a memorandum wholly
u n t e c h n i c a l i n form may be s u f f i c i e n t . I t may
c o n s i s t of a n y k i n d o f w r i t i n g .. .I1 Johnson
v . Ogle ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 120 Mont. 176, 1 8 1 P.2d 789,
791, q u o t i n g 49 Am.Jur. S t a t u t e - F r a u d s S321.
of

I t i s t h e second r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s

which a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d was n o t s a t i s f i e d i n t h e t r a n s a c -

t i o n s between t h e H i l l s t r o m s and V i l l a n o . T h i s i s t h e re-

q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e w r i t i n g be " s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y t o

be c h a r g e d o r h i s a g e n t . . ." and t h a t " [ s l u c h agreement,

i f made by a n a g e n t o f t h e p a r t y s o u g h t t o be c h a r g e d , i s

i n v a l i d u n l e s s t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e a g e n t i s i n w r i t i n g and

s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y s o u g h t t o b e c h a r g e d . " S e c t i o n 28-

2-903, MCA. Villano i s t h e p a r t y sought t o be charged i n

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s u i t and t h e p e r s o n who must have s u b s c r i b e d

a w r i t t e n n o t e o r memorandum under t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s .

Thus, t h e narrow i s s u e t o b e d e c i d e d i s w h e t h e r t h e t y p e -

w r i t t e n name "JEREMI VILLANO MD" a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e t e l e -

gram i s a s u f f i c i e n t s u b s c r i p t i o n t o s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e -

ments o f t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found

t h a t it was. W e agree.

T h i s C o u r t h a s n e v e r r u l e d o n what c : o n s t i t u t e s a valid

s u b s c r i p t i o n f o r purposes of t h e s t a t u t e of frauds. Other

c o u r t s , however, have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t a.ny mark a f -

f i x e d t o a w r i t i n g w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o a u t h e n t i c a t e i t con-

s t i t u t e s a s u f f i c i e n t s u b s c r i p t i o n by t h e p a r t y s o u g h t t o b e

charged. 72 Am.Jur.2d S t a t u t e - F r a u d s S358; 37 C.J.S.
of

F r a u d s , S t a t u t e - 85202-204;
of, 4 W i l l i s t o n , C o n t r a c t s , 8585

( 3 r d Ed. 1961) ; R e s t a t e m e n t o f C o n t r a c t s S210 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . (See

a l s o t h e Uniform Commercial Code, which, a l t h o u g h i t d o e s

n o t a p p l y t o sales o f r e a l p r o p e r t y , n e v e r t h e l e s s h a s a
s i m i l a r d e f i n i t i o n of t h e word " s i g n e d . " S e c t i o n 30-1-

2 0 1 ( 3 9 ) , McA.) Provided t h e necessary i n t e n t t o a u t h e n t i -

cate i s shown, t h e t y p e w r i t t e n " s i g n a t u r e " on a t e l e g r a m i s

a p r o p e r s u b s c r i p t i o n w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e s t a t u t e .

Yaggy v . B.V.D. Co. ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 7 N.C.App. 590, 173 S.E.2d 496,

502; La M a r H o s i e r y M i l l s , I n c . v . C r e d i t and Commodity

C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 28 Misc.2d 764, 216 N.Y.S.2d 186, 190;

J o s e p h DeNunzio F r u i t Co. v. Crane (S.D.Ca1. 1 9 4 8 ) , 79

F.Supp. 117, 128-129.

The two Montana cases c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t s i n s u p p o r t o f

t h e i r narrow t r e a t m e n t , I n r e S a l e s ' E s t a t e ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 108

Mont. 202, 89 P.2d 1043, and I n re Miller's E s t a t e ( 1 9 0 8 ) ,

37 Mont. 545, 97 P. 935, a s w e l l as t h e C a l i f o r n i a case

c i t e d , I n re Moore's E s t a t e ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 92 Cal.App.2d 120, 206

P.2d 413, d e a l w i t h t h e t e s t ' x n e n t a r y f o r m a l i t i e s f o r exe-

c u t i n g a w i l l , n o t w i t h t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s , and c a n n o t b e

used h e r e . N e i t h e r d o e s Schwedes v. Romain ( 1 9 7 8 ) , -

Mont. , 587 P.2d 388, 35 St.Rep. 1784, a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e

p r e s e n t e d h e r e b e c a u s e t h e r e was no memorandum o f t h e p a r -

t i e s ' agreement i n w r i t i n g i n t h a t case.

W e need n o t a d d r e s s t h e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n of whether o r

n o t a t e l e g r a p h company i s t h e a g e n t of t h e s e n d e r o f a

telegram. Our s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e a g e n t ' s a u t h o r i t y

must be i n w r i t i n g s u b s c r i b e d by t h e p a r t y s o u g h t t o b e

c h a r g e d o n l y i f a n agreement f o r t h e same of r e a l p r o p e r t y
i s "made" by t h e a g e n t . I t i s a p p a r e n t i n t h i s case t h a t

t h e agreement w a s n o t "made" by t h e t e l e g r a p h company and
t h a t t h e company was v i l l a n o ' s a g e n t , i f a t a l l , o n l y f o r

t h e l i m i t e d p u r p o s e of communicating h e r t e l e g r a m .

A s i d e i s s u e a r o s e i n t h i s a p p e a l a s t o whether t h e r e

i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e v is-
t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t Villano understood t h e t e r m s of

t h e ~ i l l s t r o m s 'o f f e r and t h a t s h e i n f a c t a c c e p t e d t h e

o f f e r intending her teletypewritten signature t o authenti-

cate h e r t e l e g r a m . Notwithstanding a p p e l l a n t s ' contention

t h a t V i l l a n o d i d n o t i n t e n d h e r t y p e w r i t t e n name t o a u t h e n -

ticate t h e telegram because she understood t h e s a l e s p r i c e

t o be $55,000 w i t h a n 8 p e r c e n t commission r a t h e r t h a n t h e

$52,800 w i t h a 4 p e r c e n t commission which r e s u l t e d a f t e r

S t r a h n and H i l l s t r o m a g r e e d t o s p l i t t h e commission, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t found o t h e r w i s e .

V i l l a n o ' s i n t e n t t o a u t h e n t i c a t e h e r t y p e w r i t t e n name

on t h e t e l e g r a m a s h e r v a l i d s u b s c r i p t i o n i s , of c o u r s e ,

r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s . Radke v . Brenon

( 1 9 6 5 ) , 271 ~ i n n g 3 5 ,134 N.W.2d 887; Marks v. Walter G .

McCarty Corp. ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 3 3 Cal.2d 814, 205 P.2d 1025, 1028.

The i n t e n t t o a u t h e n t i c a t e i s e s t a b l i s h e d on t h e f a c e of t h e

t e l e g r a m which s t a t e s , "PLEASE CONSIDER THIS MY WRITTEN

ACCEPTANCE . . ." The f a c t t h a t t h e wording t o b e used w a s

d i c t a t e d by H i l l s t r o m t o S t r a h n , and t h e n o v e r t h e phone t o

V i l l a n o , i n d i c a t e s t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d t o b i n d them-

s e l v e s and c l o s e t h e d e a l .

T h i s i n t e n t i s s u p p o r t e d f u r t h e r by p l a i n t i f f ' s t e s t i -

mony t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d s h e had a f i r m d e a l , n o t w i t h s t a n d -

i n g h e r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s h e t h o u g h t t h e t e r m s of t h e d e a l t o

be o t h e r w i s e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f

S t r a h n t h a t t h e f i g u r e o f $52,800, a s w r i t t e n on t h e " ~ a r n e s t

Money R e c e i p t and Agreement t o S e l l and P u r c h a s e , " w a s r e a d

t o V i l l a n o o v e r t h e t e l e p h o n e by S t r a h n . I n any c a s e ,

V i l l a n o r e c e i v e d $88 more f o r h e r p r o p e r t y under t h e s p l i t

commission arrangement t h a n s h e would have r e c e i v e d under a
s a l e s p r i c e of $55,000 w i t h a n 8 p e r c e n t commission. v his
evidence e s t a b l i s h e s V i l l a n o ' s i n t e n t t o a u t h e n t i c a t e her

t y p e w r i t t e n s i g n a t u r e on t h e t e l e g r a m .

W n o t e t h a t t h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a c o n t r a c t which i n
e

f a c t h a s been a d m i t t e d . V i l l a n o ' s a d m i s s i o n of t h e a g r e e -

ment i s i m p o r t a n t because i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a d m i t t e d con-

t r a c t s , w e have c o n s t r u e d t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s less t e c h -

n i c a l l y , r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w t h e s t a t u t e t o be used s o a s t o

d e f e a t i t s p u r p o s e t o p r e v e n t t h e commission of a f r a u d .

Farmers E l e v a t o r Co. v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 1 7 5 , 552

P.2d 63; G r a v e l i n v . P o r i e r ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 77 Mont. 260, 250 P.

823, 829.

The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

W e concur:

.
. Chief J u s t i c e

Justices
Q . ~ J W -,
,