No. 81-17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
JOHN KINJERSKI ,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
FRITZ LAYEY, individually, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents,
-vs-
ANNA KINJERSKI, ~ h i r dParty Defendant and Appellant.
.1 from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable
Robert Holter, Judge presiding,
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Morrison, Jonkel, Kemmis & Rossbach, Missoula,
Montana
For Respondents:
Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 13, 1981
Decided: OCT 2 9 I#n
Filed:
M r . 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 of t h e
Court.
J o h n K i n j e r s k i b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n May o f 1 9 7 8 t o
r e c o v e r 49 h e a d o f cows p u r c h a s e d from d e f e n d a n t s as e v i d e n c e d b y
a w r i t t e n b i l l of sale. Following a j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of
d e f e n d a n t s , p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t and we remanded f o r
new t r i a l . K i n j e r s k i v. Lamey ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . 6 0 4 P.2d
7 8 2 , 36 S t . R e p . 2316. A new t r i a l w a s held on October 21, 1980
a n d j u d g m e n t on t h e v e r d i c t was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f , who
now a p p e a l s from t h e j u d g m e n t and t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a
new t r i a l .
F r i t z Lamey was t h e p r e s i d e n t o f P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch,
Inc., a c a t t l e r a n c h i n g o p e r a t i o n n e a r E u r e k a , Montana. On O c t o b e r
3 , 1 9 6 7 , K i n j e r s k i and Lamey e x e c u t e d a w r i t t e n b i l l o f s a l e f o r
1 3 1 head o f Hereford c a t t l e f o r $59,000. The c a t t l e were f u r t h e r
s p e c i f i e d to be 8 0 cows, 3 1 b u l l s and 20 c a l v e s . I t is uncon-
t e s t e d t h a t t h e b u l l s , t h e c a l v e s , and 3 1 o f t h e 8 0 cows were
d e l i v e r e d to K i n j e r s k i . I t is t h e f a t e o f t h e 49 r e m a i n i n g cows
w h i c h is i n d i s p u t e .
S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e b i l l of s a l e , K i n j e r s k i
a n d Lamey became b u s i n e s s p a r t n e r s i n a new c o r p o r a t i o n known as
K & L Livestock, I n c . f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r a i s i n g and s e l l i n g
r e g i s t e r e d Hereford cattle. The new c o r p o r a t i o n p u r c h a s e d c a t t l e
f r o m b o t h t h e P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch and K i n j e r s k i . During t h e
s h o r t l i f e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , c a t t l e b e l o n g i n g to K i n j e r s k i ,
Lamey, P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch and K & L L i v e s t o c k were commingled
a n d m a i n t a i n e d t o g e t h e r on P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch p r o p e r t y .
I n A p r i l , 1978, a f t e r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of K & L Livestock,
Inc., K i n j e r s k i made demand f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f 49 o f t h e cows
r e f e r r e d to i n t h e b i l l of sale. Lamey r e f u s e d , s t a t i n g t h a t h e
d i d n o t h a v e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e cows. This lawsuit resulted.
The f i r s t t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n a v e r d i c t and j u d g m e n t f o r
d e f e n d a n t s , b u t upon a p p e a l w e remanded f o r a new t r i a l b a s e d o n
v i o l a t i o n s of the par01 evidence r u l e . K i n j e r s k i v . Lamey,
supra. Upon r e m a n d , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e p a r t i a l l y g r a n t e d a
m o t i o n b y p l a i n t i f f f o r summary j u d g m e n t , stating :
" [TIh e C o u r t now d e c i d e s t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s owe
t o s a i d p l a i n t i f f s and T h i r d P a r t y D e f e n d a n t s
c e r t a i n cows, b u t is u n a b l e a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t o
s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e which cows or t h e i r
offspring. T h a t q u e s t i o n is l e f t f o r d e t e r -
mination i n t h i s matter."
A t t h e new t r i a l e v i d e n c e was a d d u c e d showing t h a t a l i s t
o f t a t t o o numbers o f c a t t l e was s u b m i t t e d w i t h t h e b i l l o f s a l e
t o t h e F i r s t N o r t h w e s t e r n Bank o f K a l i s p e l l as c o l l a t e r a l f o r
Kinjerskil s loan. The e v i d e n c e f u r t h e r showed t h a t a n e n t i r e l y
d i f f e r e n t l i s t o f t a t t o o numbers a c c o m p a n i e d t h e c o m p l a i n t i n
t h i s action. Lamey t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t h a v e p o s s e s s i o n o f
a n y o f ~ i n j e r s k i ' s c a t t l e i n A p r i l , 1 9 7 8 when demand w a s made.
The c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y w i t h a s p e c i a l i n t e r r o -
g a t o r y form w h i c h was t o c o n s t i t u t e t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . I n per-
t i n e n t p a r t , t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were:
" 1 ) Did F r i t z Lamey or P h i l l i p s C r e e k Ranch,
I n c . h a v e a n y c a t t l e b e l o n g i n g to t h e p l a i n t i f f
i n A p r i l , 1978?
"Answer: (Circle one) Yes
" 2 ) I f t h e a n s w e r to Number 1 i s No, d o n o t
proceed any f u r t h e r . I f t h e a n s w e r to Number 1
i s Y e s , how many c a t t l e d i d F r i t z Lamey o r
hilli ips C r e e k Ranch, I n c . h a v e , and what was
t h e i r value?"
The j u r y a n s w e r e d t h e f i r s t i n t e r r o g a t o r y i n t h e n e g a t i v e and
l e f t t h e rest o f t h e q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e
directions . Judgment was e n t e r e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f .
K i n j e r s k i a r g u e s t h a t t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were
c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w o f t h e case as d e t e r m i n e d by K i n j e r s k i v .
Lamey, s u p r a , and b y t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e
d i s t r i c t judge. Kinjerski f u r t h e r contends t h a t t h e
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , v e r d i c t and judgment were c o n t r a r y to t h e l a w of
Montana c o n c e r n i n g a b u y e r ' s r e m e d i e s f o r f a i l u r e of t h e s e l l e r
t o deliver. S e c t i o n 30-2-711, MCA.
The u s e o f a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t is a u t h o r i z e d b y Rule 4 9 ( a ) ,
M.R.Civ.P., and i s l e f t to t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
W h i l e it is w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n to s t r u c t u r e t h e
f o r m and f r a m e t h e q u e s t i o n s o f a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , t h e i n t e r r o g a -
t o r i e s m u s t be a d e q u a t e to e n a b l e t h e j u r y to d e t e r m i n e t h e f a c -
t u a l i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l t o judgment. G l i c k v. Knoll (1959)t 136
Mont. 1 7 6 , 346 P.2d 9 8 7 ; Coburn C a t t l e C o . v . Small ( 1 9 0 7 ) , 3 5
Mont. 2 8 8 , 8 8 P. 9 5 3 ; 5A Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e § 49.03[2]. In
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e adequacy of t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , the
f e d e r a l c o u r t s consider the following f a c t o r s :
" ( i ) w h e t h e r , when r e a d a s a whole and i n con-
junction with the general charge the interroga-
tories adequately presented the contested issues
t o t h e j u r y ; ( i i ) w h e t h e r t h e s u b m i s s i o n of t h e
i s s u e s t o t h e j u r y was ' f a i r ' ; a n d ( i i i ) w h e t h e r
t h e ' u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t ' were c l e a r l y
submitted t o the jury." D r e i l i n g v. G e n e r a l
E l e c t r i c C o . ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 1 1 F.2d 7 6 8 , 774.
( C i t a t i o n s omitted. )
When m e a s u r e d a g a i n s t t h e a b o v e s t a n d a r d s , t h e s p e c i a l
v e r d i c t i n t h i s case i s i n a d e q u a t e . The c e n t r a l i s s u e , w h e t h e r
the plaintiff i n f a c t o b t a i n e d d e l i v e r y o f t h e c a t t l e which he
h a d b a r g a i n e d f o r , was n o t s u b m i t t e d to t h e j u r y by t h e
interrogatories. The j u r y found t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t h a v e
a n y o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c a t t l e on t h e d a t e o f demand. The a n s w e r to
t h a t q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , is n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f a l l t h e i s s u e s i n
t h e case. I t is n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e j u r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t h a v e t h e c a t t l e b e c a u s e p l a i n t i f f had a l r e a d y
r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r y or b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t s o l d them a t m a r k e t . If
o p e r a t i n g u n d e r t h e l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y , t h e j u r y w a s p r e c l u d e d by
t h e d i r e c t i o n s i n t h e s e c o n d i n t e r r o g a t o r y from d e t e r m i n i n g t h e
v a l u e o f t h e c a t t l e and t h e d a m a g e s , i f a n y , s u f f e r e d by
plaintiff.
I n o r d e r t o a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r t h e i s s u e s i n t h e case, t h e
s p e c i a l v e r d i c t s h o u l d h a v e i n c l u d e d , i n t e r a l i a , q u e s t i o n s con-
c e r n i n g w h a t happened to t h e c a t t l e a f t e r t h e b i l l o f s a l e was
e x e c u t e d , which l i s t o f t a t t o o numbers c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e
a n i m a l s w h i c h were t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e b i l l o f s a l e , w h e t h e r
p l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d d e l i v e r y o f t h e 49 cows a f t e r e x e c u t i o n of t h e
b i l l o f s a l e and i f n o t , w h a t damages were d u e to him. We find
t h a t t h e s p e c i a l i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were f a t a l l y d e f i c i e n t and w e
remand f o r a new t r i a l .
W e n o t e f o r g u i d a n c e o f c o u r t and c o u n s e l o n remand t h a t
o u r p r i o r o p i n i o n did n o t r e q u i r e t h e e x c l u s i o n of any e v i d e n c e ,
o r a l or w r i t t e n , o f e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e e x e c u t i o n o f
t h e b i l l of sale. The p a r 0 1 e v i d e n c e r u l e o p e r a t e s to e x c l u d e
e v i d e n c e o f a g r e e m e n t s o f t h e p a r t i e s p r i o r to o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s
w i t h t h e e x e c u t i o n of a f i n a l w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n of t h e
agreement. S e c t i o n 28-2-904, MCA. E v i d e n c e of t h e l i s t s of t a t -
t o o numbers was a d m i s s i b l e t o e x p l a i n t o which s p e c i f i c cows t h e
b i l l of sale r e f e r r e d . S e c t i o n 28-2-905(2) , MCA. F u r t h e r , we
n o t e t h a t t h e p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e n t g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t
was i n e r r o r . I n o r d e r t o d e c i d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s owed t o p l a i n -
t i f f c e r t a i n cows, t h e t r i a l c o u r t had to r e s o l v e d i s p u t e d f a c -
t u a l i s s u e s which s h o u l d h a v e b e e n l e f t f o r t h e j u r y .
R e v e r s e d and remanded f o r a new t r i a l .
C h i e f ~ ut isc e
W e concur: