GOGGANS v WINKLEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No* 12112 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF MONTANA H OR F 1972 T M G G A S and PHOEBE GOGGANS, O OGN husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, CLARENCE H. WINKLEY and D R T Y I. OOH WINKLEY, Husband and w i f e , and M, M. 14ANSFIELD, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : L. Lloyd Evans argued, Libby, Montana. For Respondents: Douglas and Kaufman, Libby, ~ o n t a n a . William Douglas and Leonard Kaufman argued, Libby, Montana. submitted: Decided :M February 1 7 , 1972 R 2 1 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s i n a n a c t i o n f o r damages by purchasers of land a g a i n s t s e l l e r s and t h e i r r e a l e s t a t e agent. The a c t i o n was o r i g i n a l l y t r i e d i n t h e e l e v e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Lincoln and r e s u l t e d i n a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t f o r defendants. P l a i n t i f f s appealed, t h e judgment was v a c a t e d , and t h e cause remanded f o r r e t r i a l . Goggans v . Winkley, 154 Mont. 451, 452, 459, 465 P.2d 326 ( h e r e i n a f t e r referred t o a s the f i r s t case). The r e t r i a l r e s u l t e d i n judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s and a n award of $9,000 by v e r d i c t of a j u r y . Following d e n i a l of a motion f o r judgment n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t and motion f o r a new t r i a l , defendants now a p p e a l from t ha t j udgmen t . P l a i n t i f f s Tom and Phoebe Goggans about March 1, 1967, purchased a two a c r e t r a c t of land w i t h f r o n t a g e on t h e LibbyJennings highway i n Lincoln County from defendants Clarence H. and Dorothy I. WinKley, through t h e t h i r d defendant M. M. Mansf i e l d , a r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t i n Libby. Here, t h e f a c t s a s ~ m t h e l a n dpurchase a r e t h e same a s those s e t out i n the f i r s t case, to-wit: " P l a i n t i f f - p u r c h a s e r s made a n e a r n e s t money payment and signed a w r i t t e n purchase o f f e r on a form prepared by t h e r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t which contained t h e following provisions: " ' A l l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by Broker o r i t s a g e n t s t o Buyer concerning s a i d r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a r e believed by i t and them t o be t r u e and c o r r e c t and a r e made i n good f a i t h but n e i t h e r Broker nor any of i t s salesmen o r a g e n t s r e p r e s e n t s o r w a r r a n t s any t h e r e o f t o be t r u e . Buyer has p e r s o n a l l y i n s p e c t e d s a i d premises and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y and i s p e r s o n a l l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e loca t i o n , s i z e , and c o n d i t i o n t h e r e o f and i s r e l y i n g s o l e l y upon ~ u y e r ' sown information about and i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e same and a l s o a s t o any f i n a n c i n g d t h i s s a l e contemplated by Buyer. ' "The s a l e was completed by a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t f o r deed signed by p l a i n t i f f - p u r c h a s e r s and d e f e n d a n t - s e l l e r s which cont a ined t h e following provision: " ' I t i s agreed and understood between t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o t h a t t h e expense of surveying t h e premises h e r e i n described s h a l l be borne by second p a r t i e s , t " P l a i n t i f f -purchasers entered i n t o possession and made c e r t a i n improvements on t h e p r o p e r t y , g e n e r a l l y cons i s t i n g of a gas s t a t i o n , s t o r e , and t r a i l e r park. Thereafter p l a i n t i f f - purchasers were informed by a g e n t s of t h e Montana highway department t h a t t h e i r p r o p e r t y encroached upon t h e highway r i g h t of-way approximately 40 f e e t . This a c t i o n followed. "According t o p l a i n t i f f - p u r c h a s e r s , t h e r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t made f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which induced them t o e n t e r i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed under which they purchased t h e p r o p e r t y . These g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e d of s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t c e r t a i n s t a k e s on t h e property marked i t s boundaries, t h a t such survey was a c c u r a t e and t h e s t a k e s marked t h e t r u e boundaries, and t h a t any a d d i t i o n a l survey by t h e purchasers would be a waste of time and money. According t o p l a i n t i f f - p u r c h a s e r s , they r e l i e d on t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s , obtained a drawing of t h e p r o p e r t y from t h e rea 1 e s t a t e agent w i t h dimensions of t h e p r o p e r t y marked t h e r e o n , went t o t h e p r o p e r t y and measured t h e d i s t a n c e s between t h e s t a k e s which checked w i t h t h e dimensions on t h e drawing, and a c c o r d i n g l y d i d n o t have a survey made." I n r e v e r s i n g and remanding t h e f i r s t c a s e f o r r e t r i a l , t h i s Court sa i d : "Here purchasers have a l l e g e d and o f f e r e d t o prove f r a u d i n t h e form of f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which i n duced them t o e n t e r i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . Fraud i n t h e inducement has always been held t o be provable by p a r o l , notwithstanding t h e p a r o l evidence rule: Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. , Inc. v. Wenholz, 80 Mont. 8 2 , 258 P. 1085; S a t h r e v . R o l f e , 31 Mont. 85, 77 P. 431." This a p p e a l i s from a judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s , following a jury verdict. Defendants enumerate a lengthy l i s t of i s s u e s f o r review which we summarize t o r e a c h t h e t h r u s t of d e f e n d a n t s ' appeal. 1. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n of cross-examina- t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' w i t n e s s Vernon Borden, a s t o t h e d e t a i l s o f h i s r e d i r e c t testimony. Defendants contend t h e r e d i r e c t examination of Borden sought t o enhance t h e s t a t u r e of t h e w i t n e s s and emphasize h i s o f f i c i a l connection w i t h t h e s t a t e highway depa r tmen t . 2. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n o t cross-examina - t i o n of p l a i n t i f f Phoebe Goggans w i t h r e s p e c t t o a p o s s i b l e a c t u a l o r p r o s p e c t i v e r e s a l e of t h e property i n d i s p u t e . 3. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of evidence t h a t a f e d e r a l dam i s being c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e a r e a . They contend such evidence has a d e c i s i v e bearing upon t h e i s s u e and amount of damages. 4. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n of t h e number of c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s t o t h r e e i n s t e a d of t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e of f i v e , contending t h a t s i n c e t h e c a s e was i n t h e n a t u r e of f r a u d t h e c h a r a c t e r of defendants was i n i s s u e and defendants were unduly and u n f a i r l y l i m i t e d i n t h e number of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r w i t nesses. 5. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l of a number of defendants ' o f f e r e d i n s t r u c t i o n s . 6. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t and amount of damages. I s s u e 1. Vernon Borden i s a s t a t e highway department engineer whose survey crew undertook t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r i g h t - o f way a d j o i n i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y . Measurements were made from t h e c e n t e r of t h e e x i s t i n g roadway. According t o t h o s e measure- ments t h e r e was an encroachment upon t h e 80 f o o t right-of-way of 1 . 5 f e e t a t t h e s o u t h e r l y end and 2 . 2 f e e t a t t h e n o r t h e r l y end of p l a i n t i f f s ' s t o r e building. Other encroachments were n o t e d , according t o t h e measurements, but they a r e n o t a p a r t of t h i s proceeding. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n of recross-examinat i o n of M r . Borden. From t h e t r a n s c r i p t , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t p r i o r q u e s t i o n i n g of Borden thoroughly e s t a b l i s h e d t h e measurements and encroachments, which a r e t h e b a s i s of t h i s a c t i o n . The d i r e c t and cross-examination of Borden examined t h e width of t h e r i g h t - o f -way and t h e surveying. Redirect-examina t i o n of Borden a g a i n t r e a t e d t h e m a t t e r s a l r e a d y developed i n t h e r e c o r d . t h e width of t h e right-of-way, The q u e s t i o n i n g p e r t a i n e d t o t h e l e n g t h o f time f o r l e a s e s , and surveying t o e s t a b l i s h a c e n t e r l i n e i n t h e highway. On r e c r o s s - examination t h e t r i a l c o u r t l i m i t e d examination t o t h e scope of the redirect-examination. W f i n d i t t o be a proper r u l i n g . e G a r r i s o n v. Trowbridge, 119 Mont. 505, 177 P.2d 464. As to defendants ' c o n t e n t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s Borden based upon h i s s t a t u s , no record a t t r i a l presented any i s s u e regarding h i s a u t h o r i t y , competence, o r s t a t u s . Matters of technica 1 e x p e r t i s e were s u f f i c i e n t l y examined and def e n d a n t s ' argument on any a l l e g e d u n r e l i a b i l i t y i s without m e r i t . Issue 2. Defendants ' o b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n of c r o s s - examination of t h e p l a i n t i f f Phoebe Goggans, w i t h r e s p e c t t o a p o s s i b l e a c t u a l or progpective r e s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y . Defendants sought t o e x p l o r e t h i s a r e a i n an e f f o r t t o r e f u t e p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y i s w o r t h l e s s i n view of t h e r i g h t of-way encroachment. The t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d defendants could n o t i n q u i r e i n t o p l a i n t i f f s ' f u t u r e plans r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y on t h e grounds t h a t cross-examination must be l i m i t e d t o t h o s e m a t t e r s brought o u t i n d i r e c t examination; and, t h a t t h e a r e a of q u e s t i o n i n g had no r e l e v a n c e i n t h a t i t r a i s e d a c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e , involving t h i r d p a r t i e s , n o t germane t o t h i s c a s e . Issue 3 . Defendants contend t h a t without unlimited c r o s s - examination p l a i n t i f f s ' testimony was s p e c u l a t i v e and c o n j e c t u r a l regarding damages, i n view of t h e l o c a t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y on t h e s i t e of a United S t a t e s government dam. Defendants maintain t h e i r c a s e was prejudiced when t h e c o u r t r e f u s e d t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e f a c t s which form p a r t of t h e common knowledge and experience. The f a c t t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y may be on a government dam s i t e i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s and i s c o n j e c t u r a l concerning p o s s i b l e f u t u r e and c o l l a t e r a l m a t t e r s . recovery from defendants. A t i s s u e h e r e i s t h e r i g h t of I n j e c t i o n of c o l l a t e r a 1 m a t t e r s involving t r a n s a c t i o n s between o t h e r s , which a r e i n t h i s c a s e c o n j e c t u r a l , i s c o l l a t e r a l i n a d m i s s i b l e evidence under t h e c o l l a t e r a l s o u r c e doctrine. In t h e Oklahoma c a s e , Burk Royalty Company v. J a c o b s , ( ~ k l a1963), 387 P.2d 638, 640, t h e landowners brought a c t i o n . a g a i n s t o i l and gas l e s s e e f o r damages t o s u r f a c e of land by s a l t water and o i l p o l l u t i o n . A t t r i a l , t h e c o u r t excluded l e s s e e ' s evidence t h a t t h e landowners had a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e f e d e r a l government p l a c i n g p a r t of t h e i r land under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e S o i l Bank Act. I n a f f i r m i n g , t h e Supreme Court o f Oklahoma held: "The above a l l e g a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e no d e f e n s e t o p l a i n t i f f s ' a c t i o n f o r damages caused by flowage of s a l t w a t e r and o i l over t h e i r l a n d . p l a i n t i f f s ' compensation by t h e f e d e r a l government under t h e c o n t r a c t i s merely compensation from a c o l l a t e r a l s o u r c e . W have many times h e l d t h a t a payment e t o p l a i n t i f f s from a s o u r c e wholly independent of and n o t i n b e h a l f of t h e wrongdoer cannot i n u r e t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e wrongdoer t o l e s s e n t h e damages r e c o v e r a b l e from him, and t h e e v i d e n c e o f s u c h payment i s i n a d m i s s i b l e . " Here, d e f e n d a n t s s e e k t o r e l y upon t h e common knowledge of t h e community t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d i s s i t u a t e d on t h e government dam s i t e . The f u t u r e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y , a long w i t h t h e s p e c u l a t i v e t r a n s a c t i o n s d e f e n d a n t s s e e k t o i n j e c t i n t o t h e c a s e , a r e c o n j e c t u r a l m a t t e r s n o t i n i s s u e and not relevant here. I s s u e 4. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e i r c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s t o t h r e e , i n s t e a d of t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e o f f i v e such witnesses. They contend p l a i n t i f f s ' a l l e g a t i o n s p u t t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n i s s u e and d e f e n d a n t s were unduly and u n f a i r l y l i m i t e d a s t o t h e number of t h e i r c h a r a c t e r witnesses. This i s s u e is without merit. The r e c o r d r e v e a l s no o b j e c t - t i o n by d e f e n d a n t s ' c o u n s e l t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n of t h e number o f c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Counsel must p r e s e r v e the r e c o r d t o p e r f e c t a p p e l l a t e review o f a n i s s u e . Clark v. W o r r a l l , 146 Mont. 374, 406 P.2d 822; Spencer v . Robertson, 1 5 1 Mont. 507, 445 P.2d 48. N o t i c e i s t a k e n of t h e a f f i d a v i t s o f c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f s and t h e a f f i d a v i t o f t h e t r i a l judge s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e l a c k of o b j e c t i o n by d e f e n d a n t s ' c o u n s e l . The t r i a l judge a l s o noted t h e a t t e m p t t o conduct a r e a s o n a b l e and e x p e d i t i o u s t r i a l . Of prime importance i s t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge t h a t a l t h o u g h p l a i n t i f f s o b j e c t e d t o t h e submission of any c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s n e v e r t h e l e s s , s i n c e t h e c a s e was based on a theory of c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d , t h e c o u r t permitted defendants t o p l a c e t h e i r w i t n e s s e s upon t h e s t a n d , s u b j e c t : _ \ t o . -t h e c o u r t ' s l i m i t a t i o n which was n o t o b j e c t e d t o by defendants ' counsel. Here, we n o t e t h a t from t h e record t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e defendants was n o t i n i s s u e and was n o t impeached a t t r i a l . ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t e on c h a r a c t e r testimony, s e c t i o n 93-1901-13, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Evidence of good character--when allowed. Evidence of t h e good c h a r a c t e r of a p a r t y i s n o t a d m i s s i b l e i n a c i v i l a c t i o n , nor of a w i t n e s s i n any a c t i o n , u n t i l t h e c h a r a c t e r of such p a r t y o r w i t n e s s has been impeached, o r u n l e s s t h e i s s u e involves h i s c h a r a c t e r . ' ' A t t h e very l e a s t , c h a r a c t e r testimony was n o t germane t o t h i s c a s e a n d , advancing d e f e n d a n t s ' argument t o i t s f u l l e s t e x t e n t , c e r t a i n l y the t h r e e witnesses ' testimony e s t a b l i s h e d t h e good c h a r a c t e r of detendants s u f f i c i e n t l y f o r t h e j u r y . W f i n d no e error. Issue 5. Defendants o b j e c t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l o f eleven i n s t r u c t i o n s proposed by defendants. Defendants' proposed Montana J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n Guide, (WIG), No. 1.04 o f f e r s t h e common knowledge o f dam c o n s t r u c t i o n a s t h e b a s i s of m i t i g a t i o n of damages a g a i n s t defendants. A s heretofore d i s c u s s e d , t h e i n j e c t i o n of c o l l a t e r a l m a t t e r s , independent i n n a t u r e , i s i r r e l e v a n t and properly excludable both i n t h e t a k i n g of evidence and i n summation. Kappes v . J a a p , 141 Mont. 471, 378 WIG No. 1.05 r e l a t e s t o o r a l admissions and i s mandatory, that however, we n o t e i t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 was adequate t o inform t h e j u r y on t h e weight t o be given testimony presented during t r i a l . The j u r y was p r o p e r l y a p p r i s e d of i t s r o l e i n weighing t h e testimony a s i t r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t s and circums t a n c e s a s shown by t h e evidence. The g e n e r a l p r e c a u t i o n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n given by t h e c o u r t was adequate. Detendants' proposed WIG i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 1.06 and No. 5.01 t e s t t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e evidence produced a t t r i a l , q u e s t i o n i n g t h e i n a b i l i t y of p l a i n t i t f s t o produce a p l a t which t h e p l a i n t i f f s claimed was f u r n i s h e d t o them and t h e f a i l u r e of p l a i n t i f f Tom Goggans t o a p p e a r , t e s t i f y and be cross-examined. These i n s t r u c - t i o n s a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e evidence s i n c e t h e testimony of t h e highway department e n g i n e e r , Borden, s u f f i c i e n t l y provided a u t h o r i t a t i v e e x p e r t i s e r e g a r d i n g t h e a l l e g e d encroachment. F u r t h e r , t h e d e p o s i t i o n of p l a i n t i f f Tom Goggans was r e a d i n t o t h e record pursuant t o Rule 26(d) ( 3 ) , M.R.Civ.P., a b s e n t objec- t i o n by defendants and without a motion t o suppress such deposition. The evidence thus presented by way of d e p o s i t i o n was s u f f i c i e n t t o r e p l a c e Tom Goggans a s a w i t n e s s . Defendants' i n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 was p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d s i n c e t h e c o u r t ' s given I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13. was a c l e a r s t a t e m e n t of t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e two t h e o r i e s of a c t u a l and c o n s t r u c t i v e fraud. Refused i n s t r u c t i o n No. 2 r e p r e s e n t e d a l i m i t e d i n s t r u c - t i o n r e s t r i c t i n g i t s e l f t o t h e elements of a c t u a l f r a u d and d e l e t e d t h e theory of c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d . ~ e f e n d a n t ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 3 was a d e q u a t e l y s covered by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s given I n s t r u c t i o n No. 10, which i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t t r a n s a c t i o n s a r e presumed t o have been f a i r and r e g u l a r . S i m i l a r l y , d e f e n d a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 5 on t h e presumption o f good f a i t h was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c o u r t ' s g i v e n I n s t r u c t i o n s No. 2 and No. 10, which s t a t e d t h a t w i t n e s s e s a r e presumed t o s p e a k t h e t r u t h and t r a n s a c t i o n s a r e presumed t o have been f a i r and r e g u l a r . ~ e f e n d a n t s ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 6 , 7 , and 8 p e r t a i n t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t r e g a r d i n g s u r v e y i n g . W f i n d them t o be w i t h o u t m e r i t a s t h i s Court s a i d i n t h e f i r s t e case: "We h o l d t h a t , i n any e v e n t , t h e s u r v e y p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t does n o t b a r i n q u i r y i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n of whether p u r c h a s e r s g o t what t h e y bargained f o r . I f c e r t a i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were made t o p u r c h a s e r s by t h e s e l l e r s ' a g e n t r e l a t i v e t o a p r e v i o u s s u r v e y , t h e marking of t h e boundaries t h e r e o f w i t h s t a k e s , and t h e measurements of t h e p e r i m e t e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t t h e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were p r o p e r l y r e l i e d upon t h e r e b y i n d u c i n g p u r c h a s e r s t o buy w i t h o u t a s u r v e y , a l l a s comprehended i n p u r c h a s e r s ' o f f e r o f p r o o f , and i t l a t e r t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e i n c o r r e c t and t h e p r o p e r t y i s i n f a c t i n a d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n and encroaches on t h e s t a t e ' s r i g h t of-way, t h e n t h e p u r c h a s e r s a r e n o t f o r e c l o s e d from a t t e m p t i n g t o prove t h e s e f a c t s by t h e c o n t r a c t prov i s i o n i n q u e s t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was i n e r r o r a t t h i s point." ~ e f e n d a n t ' proposed i n s t r u c t i o n No. 11 i s a n i n s t r u c t i o n s on damages and we f i n d no e r r o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o g r a n t s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n , s i n c e i t was i n s u b s t a n c e a d e q u a t e l y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c o u r t ' s g i v e n I n s t r u c t i o n s No. 7 and No. 11. W f i n d no m e r i t i n d e f e n d a n t s e I s s u e No. 6 . ' i s s u e No. 5. Defendants contend tha t i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o show (1) f r a u d , (2) encroachment, and ( 3 ) damages, t o support the jury v e r d i c t . Defendants have framed t h e f i r s t p o i n t of t h i s i s s u e i n terms of f r a u d , when i n f a c t t h e c a s e was t r i e d on m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e boundaries 0 2 t h e p r o p e r t y . Evidence produced a t t r i a 1 demonstrated t h e p r o p e r t y was surveyed and represented t o t h e buyers a s c o n t a i n i n g a 40 f o o t s t r i p which i n f a c t was p a r t of a highway right-of-way. The testimony r e g a r d i n g s t a k e s v i s i b l e on t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e time of s a l e i s f u r t h e r evidence of t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . That t h e r e was an encroachment contained i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n was a d e q u a t e l y l a i d t o r e s t by t h e testimony d e s c r i b i n g t h e highway right-of-way. P l a i n t i k f s from t h e o u t s e t maintained t h a t t h e i r c l a i m r e s t e d on t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n which they were g i v e n . P l a i n t i f f s did n o t a t any time p r e d i c a t e t h e i r s u i t upon a c l a i m of f r a u d on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t s . W f i n d d e f e n d a n t s ' argument on t h i s e p o i n t i s n o t germane t o t h e f a c t s . S u b s t a n t i a l evidence of m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was a d e q u a t e l y shown and i f b e l i e v e d by t h e j u r y , served a s the basis f o r i t s v e r d i c t . a 1leged The second p o i n t i n i s s u e No. 6 goes t o t h e / i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o show encroachment. As we have n o t e d , evidence taken a t t r i a l r e g a r d i n g surveying was d i r e c t l y i n p o i n t t o show t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were i n f a c t n o t e n t i t l e d t o a 40 f o o t r i g h t - of-way which belonged t o t h e highway and which extended t h e f u l l l e n g t h o f t h e a b u t t i n g p r o p e r t y t h e y had purchased. T h i s was a r e d u c t i o n and an i n j u r y of t h e purchase, flowing o u t of t h e misrepresentation i n the description. Again, we f i n d t h e j u r y was p r e s e n t e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o s o f i n d . The t h i r d p o i n t i n i s s u e No. 6 t e s t s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence a s t o damages t o s u p p o r t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t . We are d i r e c t e d a g a i n t o t h e body of evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l o u t l i n i n g and t h e n a t u r e of p l a i n t i f f s ' b u s i n e s s / a s i t was a f f e c t e d by t h e encroachment. Testimony a s t o t h e r e l a t i v e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y both w i t h and w i t h o u t t h a t s t r i p of land was brought o u t a t t r i a l and we f i n d no r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s t o d i s t u r b t h e j u r y ' s a s s e s s ment. This Court has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t even though t h e evidence i s i n c o n f l i c t , i t w i l l only review t h e evidence t o determine i f t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o s u p p o r t the verdict. Breen v . Ind. Acc. Board, 150 Mont. 463, 436 P.2d 701; Davis v . Davis, Mon - t. 3 - P.2d - W f i n d no m e r i t i n defendants ' i s s u e No. 6 . e The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t i sitting for Justice Wesley C a s t l e s . , 29 St.Rep. 65.

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.