No. 14772
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1979
ROBERT F. DOWNS,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
BERNARD SMYK, a / k / a BERNARD L. SMYK,
and LOIS SMYK,
D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f 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 , 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 .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
B e r n a r d a n d L o i s Smyk, B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
C a l v i n A. C a l t o n , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted on B r i e f s : October 1 8 , 1 9 7 9
Decided : GEC 2 1 1
m
Filed :
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
This is an action to quiet title to certain real prop-
erty located in Yellowstone County in the District Court of
the Thirteenth Judicial District, the Honorable Charles
Luedke presiding.
Defendant-appellant, Bernard L. Smyk, leased approxi-
mately seven and one-half acres of certain commercially
desirable land in Billings, Montana, in 1976. Appellant was
given the option to purchase such land by a letter received
from his lessor on March 2, 1976. According to the terms of
the letter, the option to purchase called for a total pur-
chase price of $300,000 and a down payment of $60,000 and
was to be exercised by appellant within 120 days. Unable to
make the down payment, appellant contacted plaintiff-respon-
dent, Robert F. Downs, for financial assistance. Respondent
agreed to furnish appellant with the $60,000 down payment,
and an agreement was executed to that effect in June 1976.
That agreement recited that "Robert F. Downs will advance
the down payment of $60,000.00 and in consideration therefor
will acquire a 50% interest in the property." The agreement
also stated:
"When the proposed contract for deed will permit,
the parties hereto agree to execute whatever may
be required to establish their respective in-
terests in the real estate of record with the
Clerk and Recorder, Yellowstone County, Montana."
Under the agreement, respondent controlled all contrac-
tual arrangements concerning the property until appellant
contributed, by means of monthly installments, an amount
equal to that of the down payment. At that time, both
appellant and respondent would share profits and liabilities
equally.
~ a v i n g b t a i n e d t h e down payment, a p p e l l a n t e n t e r e d
o
i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r deed t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y i n J u l y
1976. ~ p p e l l a n tt h e r e a f t e r o c c u p i e d t h e p r o p e r t y a s h i s
p l a c e of b u s i n e s s u n t i l a d i s p u t e a r o s e between t h e p a r t i e s
o v e r t h e i m p o r t of t h e agreement i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a pos-
s i b l e sale of t h e land. The d i s p u t e concerned whether
r e s p o n d e n t had m e r e l y l o a n e d a p p e l l a n t t h e money f o r t h e
p u r c h a s e of t h e l a n d o r had e n t e r e d i n t o a n agreement whereby
he was conveyed a n u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e land.
A s a r e s u l t of t h e d i s p u t e , r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a n a c t i o n
i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 27, 1978, s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c
performance of t h e agreement, a p a r t i t i o n i n g o f t h e prop-
e r t y , and a n a c c o u n t i n g and payment o f r e n t a l s . An amended
c o m p l a i n t w a s f i l e d i n August 1978, a s k i n g t h e c o u r t t o
q u i e t t i t l e t o a n u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e prop-
e r t y , p a r t i t i o n t h e p r o p e r t y , o r d e r a n a c c o u n t i n g , and i s s u e
d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a s t o t h e r i g h t o f c o n t r o l f o r t h e s a l e
of t h e property. On August 2 3 , 1978, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a
motion f o r summary judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P.
Both p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d b r i e f s on t h e motion a n d , on F e b r u a r y
1 3 , 1979, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment a s t o r e s p o n -
d e n t ' s c l a i m t o q u i e t t i t l e and h i s r e q u e s t f o r an a c c o u n t -
i n g and payment o f income due. Judgment was t h e n e n t e r e d by
t h e c o u r t on F e b r u a r y 23, 1979, and f i n a l judgment was
e n t e r e d on October 1, 1979.
W c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
e
(1) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g sum-
mary judgment b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t make 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 of law.
( 2 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g sum-
mary judgment b e c a u s e t h e r e w e r e g e n u i n e i s s u e s of material
f a c t before the court.
( 3 ) whether a p p e l l a n t may i n t r o d u c e , and whether t h i s
C o u r t may p r o p e r l y r e v i e w , e v i d e n c e which i s e x t r a n e o u s t o
t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l .
A s h i s f i r s t i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s i t was e r r o r f o r
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o g r a n t summary judgment and n o t e n t e r
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. A p p e l l a n t main-
t a i n s t h a t such f i n d i n g s w e r e n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e y i n f o r m
t h e p a r t i e s and a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t of t h e b a s i s f o r t h e
decision. Because no f i n d i n g s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e i n s t a n t
case, a p p e l l a n t contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d .
W e disagree. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o be
e n t e r e d upon motions f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P.,
f o r summary judgment, e x c e p t when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e by a
p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r comply w i t h t h e r u l e s of t h e c o u r t
under Rule 4 1 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. Rule 52 ( a ) s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t
p a r t t h a t "findings . . . are u n n e c e s s a r y on d e c i s i o n s of
m o t i o n s under R u l e s 1 2 o r 56 o r any o t h e r motion e x c e p t a s
p r o v i d e d i n Rule 4 1 ( b ) . "
A p p e l l a n t a t t e m p t s t o r e l y upon t h e c a s e of Upper
M i s s o u r i G & T E l e c . Coop. v . McCone E l e c . Co-op ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157
Mont. 239, 484 P.2d 741, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s u c h
findings a r e necessary. Upper M i s s o u r i was a c a s e i n which
a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f i t s own v o l i t i o n made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t
i n g r a n t i n g a motion f o r summary judgment. The judgment was
r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e f i n d i n g s were u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i -
dence. I n t h a t opinion, t h i s Court noted t h a t f i n d i n g s w e r e
n o t r e q u i r e d i n d e c i s i o n s on motions f o r summary judgment,
b u t t h a t , i f f i n d i n g s were e n t e r e d and w e r e u n s u p p o r t e d by
t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e judgment would be r e v e r s e d :
"While, under Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., findings
o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w are u n n e c e s s a r y
i n d e c i s i o n s on summary judgment, w e f i n d h e r e
t h a t an a n a l y s i s of t h e findings determines t h e
c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e summary judgment i n v o l v e d .
A s w e remarked b e f o r e , o u r a n a l y s i s w i l l o f t e n
show no e v i d e n c e - - t h a t i s t h e n e g a t i v e . " Upper
M i s s o u r i , 157 Mont. a t 244, 484 P.2d a t 744.
The motion f o r summary judgment i n t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t
r e l a t e t o t h e f a i l u r e o f p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r comply
w i t h t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Therefore, t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment b e c a u s e
i t d i d n o t e n t e r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w .
Appellant n e x t argues t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n
g r a n t i n g summary judgment b e c a u s e a n i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t
w a s before t h e court. By s t a t u t e i t i s c l e a r t h a t summary
judgment i s o n l y p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d " i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i -
t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e s ,
t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i f any, show t h a t t h e r e i s no
g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving
p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a matter of law." Rule
56 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P.
I n a motion f o r summary judgment, t h e moving p a r t y h a s
t h e burden o f showing t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of f a c t i s
before t h e t r i a l court. Where t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l y shows no
i s s u e , t h e burden s h i f t s , and t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y must come
forward w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e . Har-
l a n d v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 447, 450-451, 548 P.2d
"The C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e p a r t y
moving f o r summary judgment h a s t h e burden of
showing t h e complete a b s e n c e o f any g e n u i n e is-
s u e a s t o a l l f a c t s which a r e deemed m a t e r i a l
i n l i g h t of t h o s e s u b s t a n t i v e p r i n c i p l e s which
e n t i t l e him t o a judgment as a m a t t e r of law
"The p r i m a r y p o l i c y and g e n e r a l p u r p o s e under-
l y i n g Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., i s t o encourage judi-
c i a 1 economy t h r o u g h t h e prompt e l i m i n a t i o n o f
q u e s t i o n s n o t d e s e r v i n g of r e s o l u t i o n by t r i a l .
[Citation omitted.] Thus w h i l e t h e i n i t i a l bur-
den of proof must a t t a c h t o t h e movant, t h a t
burden s h i f t s where t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no
genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Under t h e s e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion must
come forward w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r a i s i n g
the issue. [Citations omitted.]"
H e r e , r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a motion f o r summary judgment
and t h u s had t h e burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s e n c e of any
m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t . Respondent a t t e m p t e d t o c a r r y t h i s
burden by a r g u i n g i n h i s b r i e f t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e
r e c o r d w a s c l e a r and d e v o i d of any g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material
fact. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e d , however, t h a t t h e r e c o r d was ambigu-
o u s and t h a t a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t was b e f o r e t h e c o u r t .
T h a t i s s u e was whether r e s p o n d e n t , under t h e terms of t h e
agreement between a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t , o b t a i n e d any
i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y by advancing money and, i f s o , when
he o b t a i n e d such i n t e r e s t . On t h e one hand, a p p e l l a n t
a r g u e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t o b t a i n any i n t e r e s t i n t h e
p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e t h e money w a s advanced a s a l o a n . On t h e
o t h e r hand, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t , by t h e t e r m s
o f t h e agreement, o b t a i n e d o n l y a f u t u r e i n t e r e s t i n t h e
land. The t r i a l c o u r t was f a c e d w i t h , a s w e a r e , l o o k i n g t o
t h e r e c o r d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any g e n u i n e i s s u e
of m a t e r i a l f a c t .
A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s h e a v i l y on t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t
f o r one o f h i s arguments. A p p e l l a n t emphasizes t h a t , a c -
cording t o t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t , respondent obtained
h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y o n l y "when t h e proposed con-
t r a c t f o r deed w i l l p e r m i t . . ." Therefore, appellant
contends t h a t respondent acquired only a f u t u r e i n t e r e s t i n
t h e land.
According t o t h e r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n , a c o n t r a c t i s
t o be i n t e r p r e t e d s o a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e mutual i n t e n -
t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s . S e c t i o n 28-3-301, MCA. Where t h e
l a n g u a g e o f a c o n t r a c t i s c l e a r and e x p l i c i t and d o e s n o t
i n v o l v e a n a b s u r d i t y , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t i s
governed by s u c h language. S e c t i o n 28-3-401, MCA. The
whole o f t h e c o n t r a c t i s t o be t a k e n t o g e t h e r s o a s t o g i v e
e f f e c t t o every p a r t i f reasonably p r a c t i c a b l e , each c l a u s e
helping t o i n t e r p r e t t h e other. S e c t i o n 28-3-202, MCA.
" I t is well established t h a t a court, i n inter-
p r e t i n g a w r i t t e n instrument, w i l l n o t i s o l a t e
c e r t a i n phrases of t h a t instrument i n order t o
garner t h e i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s , b u t w i l l grasp
t h e i n s t r u m e n t by i t s f o u r c o r n e r s and i n l i g h t
o f t h e e n t i r e i n s t r u m e n t , a s c e r t a i n t h e paramount
and g u i d i n g i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s . Mere i s o -
l a t e d t r a c t s , c l a u s e s and words w i l l n o t be a l -
lowed t o p r e v a i l o v e r t h e g e n e r a l l a n g u a g e
u t i l i z e d i n t h e instrument." S t e e n v. Rustad
( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 96, 102, 313 P.2d 1014, 1018.
A p p e l l a n t ' s argument i s p r e d i c a t e d on a n i s o l a t e d
p h r a s e of t h e c o n t r a c t , which i s t a k e n o u t of c o n t e x t and
omits t h e remaining p a r t of t h e sentence. The s e n t e n c e i n
i t s e n t i r e t y is:
"When t h e proposed c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i l l p e r m i t ,
t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o a g r e e t o e x e c u t e whatever may
be r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e i n t e r -
e s t s i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e of r e c o r d w i t h t h e C l e r k
and Recorder, Yellowstone County, Montana."
Viewed i n i t s e n t i r e t y , t h e p r o v i s i o n t a k e s on new
meaning. The c l a u s e , by i t s v e r y t e r m s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t
r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d a p r e s e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d which was
t o be r e c o r d e d a t a f u t u r e d a t e . That t h i s i s c l e a r l y t h e
i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s i s f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e d by o t h e r
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e agreement:
" R o b e r t F. Downs w i l l advance t h e down payment
o f $60,000.00 and i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r
w i l l a c q u i r e a 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y .
"Downs w i l l c o n t r o l any c o n t r a c t u a l a r r a n g e -
ments u n t i l Smyk h a s c o n t r i b u t e d , by payment o f
monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s , t h e sum of $60,000.00. A t
t h a t time, Downs and Smyk s h a l l e q u a l l y s h a r e
a l l l i a b i l i t i e s and p r o f i t s , i f any."
A p p e l l a n t a g a i n r e l i e s h e a v i l y on a n i s o l a t e d p h r a s e
f o r t h e argument t h a t r e s p o n d e n t o b t a i n e d no i n t e r e s t i n t h e
l a n d b e c a u s e t h e money advanced by r e s p o n d e n t was m e r e l y a
loan. T h a t p h r a s e i s found i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s d e p o s i t i o n i n
which r e s p o n d e n t s t a t e s t h a t he " l e n d [ e d ] t h e money t o him
[appellant] ." I n e v a l u a t i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s argument, i t i s
f i r s t i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e answer was g i v e n by respon-
d e n t o n l y a f t e r h i s c o u n s e l v o i c e d two o b j e c t i o n s as t o
form. S e c o n d l y , i t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o examine o t h e r
p o r t i o n s of t h e deposition. There, i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t
t h e answer i s t a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t n e v e r
considered t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a loan:
"Q. NOW, I n o t i c e i n P a r a g r a p h 3 o f t h e a g r e e -
ment t h a t i t s t a t e s , ' R o b e r t F. Downs w i l l ad-
vance t h e down payment of $60,000.00 and i n
c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r w i l l a c q u i r e a 50% i n -
terest i n t h e property.' Now, when w e r e you
supposed t o a c q u i r e t h e 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e
p r o p e r t y ? A. W e l l , I had 50% when I g i v e t h e
$60,000 down.
"Q. A r e you t h e owner o f t h i s p r o p e r t y ? A.
I ' m h a l f owner.
"Q. Where d o e s M r . C a r l s o n f i t i n t o t h i s ?
A. I ' m h a l f buyer. I ' l l c o r r e c t m statement."
y
W e need n o t l o o k t o t h e d e p o s i t i o n , however, t o deter-
mine whether t h e money was advanced by r e s p o n d e n t f o r a down
payment o r a s a l o a n . The agreement i t s e l f r e v e a l s t h e
answer. The c o n t r a c t d e s c r i b e s t h e money a s a down payment,
n o t as a l o a n . Nowhere i n t h e c o n t r a c t i s t h e r e made men-
t i o n o f a l o a n , o r a p r o v i s i o n f o r repayment of a l o a n , o r a
p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g i n t e r e s t on t h e $60,000. Rather, t h e
c o n t r a c t s t a t e s t h a t - c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e down payment,
in
r e s p o n d e n t w i l l a c q u i r e a 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y .
F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s a p r o v i s i o n which i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
p a r t i e s w i l l e q u a l l y s h a r e p r o f i t s and l i a b i l i t i e s when
a p p e l l a n t h a s c o n t r i b u t e d a n amount e q u a l t o t h e down pay-
ment. Without q u e s t i o n , t h e r e i s a c l e a r and d e f i n i t e
i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s t o s h a r e 50-50 i n t h e ownership,
l i a b i l i t i e s , and income o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s .
W e f i n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err
i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o r e s p o n d e n t . There was no
genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h e record before t h e
court. I t i s c l e a r from t h e f a c e of t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t
r e s p o n d e n t o b t a i n e d a one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y upon
f u r n i s h i n g t h e down payment, such i n t e r e s t t o be r e c o r d e d
when t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed p e r m i t t e d . Appellant f a i l e d t o
come forward w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e of a
genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . A s t h i s Court s t a t e d i n
Yecny v . Day ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont. , 571 P.2d 386, 388, 34
St.Rep. 1323, 1325:
. t h e p a r t y o p p o s i n g t h e motion must p r e -
s e n t f a c t s i n p r o p e r form--conclusions o f law
w i l l n o t s u f f i c e ; and t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s f a c t s
must be m a t e r i a l and o f a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e ,
n o t f a n c i f u l , f r i v o l o u s , gauzy, n o r merely s u s -
picious. " (Citations omitted. )
The f i n a l i s s u e c o n c e r n s whether a p p e l l a n t may i n t r o -
d u c e , and whether t h i s C o u r t may p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r , e v i d e n c e
which i s e x t r a n e o u s t o t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t begs
t h i s C o u r t , i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e summary
judgment, t o examine a d e p o s i t i o n g i v e n by r e s p o n d e n t i n a
d i s s o l u t i o n and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d i n g p r e v i o u s l y
d e c i d e d by t h i s C o u r t . T h a t d e p o s i t i o n , however, was
n e i t h e r i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e n o r c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l
c o u r t i n t h i s matter.
I t i s a w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h i s Court i s
confined i n equity c a s e s t o a consideration of evidence
presented i n the record. S e c t i o n 3-2-204(5), MCA, s t a t e s i n
pertinent part:
" I n e q u i t y cases and i n m a t t e r s and p r o c e e d i n g s
o f a n e q u i t a b l e n a t u r e , t h e supreme c o u r t s h a l l
r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t a r i s i n g upon t h e
evidence presented - - record i n the . . ." (Empha-
s i s added.)
W e have p r e v i o u s l y r e f u s e d t o c o n s i d e r a t t e m p t s by
l i t i g a n t s t o introduce testimony extraneous t o t h e record.
I n Montgomery v . F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 4 Mont. 395,
4 1 2 , 136 P.2d 760, 768, w e s t a t e d :
" R e f e r e n c e h a s been made t o c e r t a i n t e s t i m o n y
g i v e n a t t h e t r i a l i n Montgomery v. G i l b e r t .
S e c t i o n 9745, Revised Codes, p r o v i d e s what con-
s t i t u t e s t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l from a n o r d e r i n
probate. The t e s t i m o n y - -e p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n
i n th
i s - t p a r t - t h e p r e s e n t r e c o r d . Although w e
- n o - - of
d o n o t s e e w h e r e i n i t h a s any b e a r i n g on t h e
i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by r e s p o n d e n t s ' p e t i t i o n t o s e l l
and a p p e l l a n t s ' o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o , n e v e r t h e l e s s ,
i f i t - h a s , w e m x -t- - - t h a t t e s t i m o n y for
n o look t o
t h e p u r p o s e o f s u p p l y i n g -- t p r e s e n t e d in
facts no
t h e record f o r review - - p r e s e n t proceeding."
i n the
(Citations omitted.) (Emphasis a d d e d . )
I n Farmers S t a t e Bank of Conrad v . I v e r s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162
Mont. 1 3 0 , 133-134, 509 P.2d 839, 841, w e a l s o s t a t e d :
" I n a d d i t i o n w e must comment on t h e ' b a c k d o o r '
a t t e m p t by p e t i t i o n e r s and a p p e l l a n t s t o i n t r o -
duce extraneous evidence i n t h e s e proceedings
by a t t a c h i n g Appendix ' A ' , ' B ' , and ' C ' t o t h e i r
b r i e f on a p p e a l . Said appendices being a f f i d a -
v i t s of Ralph Bouma, t o which are a t t a c h e d
p h o t o s t a t i c c o p i e s of c e r t a i n c i t a t i o n s and
o r d e r s i n c a u s e s 8073 and 8221, Pondera County,
r e f e r r e d t o previously.
"We s t r o n g l y condemn t h i s p r a c t i c e Q c o u n s e l
f o r a p p e l l a n t s and u s e t h i s o c c a s i o n to warn
o t h e r p a r t i e s t o f u t u r e a p p e a l s --p r a c -
that this
t i c e w i l l n o t- t o l e r a t e d . "
-
We find, therefore, that we may not consider evidence
which is extraneous to the record on this appeal.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
affirmed.
We concur:
~AAJ p4&&@
Chief Justice
Justices
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified,
did not participate in this case.