BEACH v DESTINATION ENTERPRISES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12637 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN REX BEACH, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t -vsDESTINATION ENTERPRISES, I N C . , D e f e n d a n t and Respondent APPELLANT'S BRIEF On Appeal from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e o f Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of G a l l a t i n APR 16 1974 APPEARANCES : ALLEN L. McALEAR #3 S t o r y Block Bozeman, Montana GLERK QF SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA A t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t BROWN & GILBERT G a l l a t i n Block S u i t e 5 40 E a s t Main Bozeman, Montana A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t and Respondent INDEX TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW........ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................... 2 1. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.................... 2 ARGUMENT........................................ 3 SUMMARY...................................... 8 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING.......................... 10 TABLE OF CASES Alamance I n d u s t i r i e s , I n c . v. F i l e n e 1 s ( C A l s t , 1961) 291 F2d 142, 145, 4 FR Serv2d 41a.24, Case l............ ............. 8 Anderson Nat. Bank v L u c k e t t , 321 U S 233, 246, 88 L e d 692, 705, 64 S C t 599, 1 5 1 A R 824. L 4 Cremer v s . B r a a t e n , 1 5 1 Mont. 1 8 438 P. 2d. 553. 7 E l d r i d g e v. I d a h o S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y 54 I d a h o 213, 30 Pac. ( 2 d ) , 781, 784.. ........ 6 F e d e r a l D e p o s i t I n s . Corp. v s L o t s c h , 3 FRD 4 6 4 . .................................... 8 Harnmond P a c k i n g Co. v. A r k a n s a s , 212 U S 322, 53 L e d 530, 29 S C t 370, 15 Ann Cas 645. 4 ............................. Hoveg v E l l i o t t , 167 U 409, 42 L ed 215, S 1 7 S C t 841 ................................... Huffmaster v. United S t a t e s . C i t e a s 186 F.Supp. 120 ( 1 9 6 0 ) . . . . . ......,............ J a n g u l a v s . U n i t e d S t a t e s Rubber Co., 1 4 9 Mont. 241, 425 P.2d 3 1 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDEX CASES CITED (CONT.) PAGE ....................... 5. 8 Kujich vs . Lillie. 127 Mont . 125. 260 P2d 383 ................................. 6 Link v . Wabash R . Co., 370 US 626. 8 L ed 2d 734. 82 S Ct 1386 .................. 3 Smotherman vs . Christianson 59 Mont . 212. 195 Pac. 1106 ........................... 4 Societe Internationale v . Brownell. 78 S ct 1078. 357 US 197 2 L Ed . 1255........ 4 State ex rel. Johnstone v . District Court. 132 Mont . 377. 319 P.28 957.................. 7 State Savings Bank v . Albertson et al., 39 Mont . 414. 102 Pac . 62,, 9,., .......5 ........ 6. 7 Sykes vs . US. 290 F 2 555...................... 5 8 . Wright v . Howe. 46 Utah 588. 150 Pac . 956. L.R.A. 1916B. 1104...................... 7 Jarva vs US. 280 F 2 892 STATUTES CITED Court Rules of District Eighteen. Rule 7 ....................................... Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 37 ...................................... Rule 41(b) ...................................1.3.5. . & 4 6 TEXTS AND AUTHORITIES ............. 2B Barron Holtzoff. 144 5918...............,. 31 Federal Rules Decisions 619 ................. Moore on Federal Procedure. Rule 41(b). 1118(c) . 2B Barron 7 Holtzoff. Rule 41 $917 5 5 4 5 No. 12637 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN REX BEACH, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t DESTINATION ENTERPRISES, I N C . , D e f e n d a n t and Respondent APPELLANT'S BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d a r e : A. Can a D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s a n a c t i o n f o r f a i l u r e RP t o p r o s e c u t e u n d e r 41(b) M C w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o t h e plaintiff? B. Can t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s a c o m p l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e u n d e r 41(b) M C w i t h o u t a RP showing of p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ? C. S h o u l d t h e p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s b o t h be reviewed i n determining whether t h e a c t i o n should be dismissed? D. Can t h e c o u r t v i o l a t e i t s own r u l e s a s t o dismissal f o r f a i l u r e t o prosecute? STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS : Complaint was f i l e d August 1 0 , 1970 i n t h e E i g h t - e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r G a l l a t i n County. The firm o f S t . C l a i r , S t . C l a i r , H i l l e r & Benjamin o f I d a h o F a l l s , I d a h o were a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f j o i n i n g t h e f i r m o f Berg, Angel, A n d r i o l o & Morgan a s l o c a l counsel. Summons was i s s u e d and was s e r v e d on t h e defend a n t s ' c o r p o r a t i o n s e c r e t a r y on August 11, 1970. The d e f e n d a n t s c o r p o r a t i o n a p p e a r e d by I t s a t t o r n e y f i l i n g a Motion t o D i s m i s s on September 23, 1970. On October 5, 1970 t h e d e f e n d a n t s 1 Motion t o D i s m i s s was o v e r r u l e d and t h e d e f e n d a n t was a l l o w e d twenty ( 2 0 ) days w i t h i n which t o answer o r f u r t h e r p l e a . The d e f e n d a n t was i n d e f a u l t f o r n e a r l y s e v e n t e e n ( 1 7 ) months and t h e n on March 1 7 , 1972 i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e same d e f e n d a n t t h e p l a i n t i f f w a s p r e s e n t b u t r e p r e s e n t e d by o t h e r a t t o r n e y s . The de- f e n d a n t ' $ a t t o r n e y i n open c o u r t moved t h e c o u r t t o dismiss the i n s t a n t action f o r f a i l u r e t o prosecute which was a l l o w e d by t h e c o u r t and n o t e d by m i n u t e entry. A f t e r change o f c o u n s e l t h i s p l a i n t i f f 's a t - t o r n e y moved t h e c o u r t f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e c a u s e on August 21, 1973. It was d e n i e d on September 6 , 1973 and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w s from t h a t o r d e r . It may a l s o a p p e a r t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f i l e d a Chapter X I r e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n bankruptcy on November 2 , 1972 ARGUMENT A. CAN A DISTRICT COURT DISMISS A N A C T I O N FOR FAILURE RP O T PROSECUTE U D R 41(b) M C WITHOUT NOTICE T O NE THE PLAINTIFF? I n v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l i s governed by Rule 4 1 ( b ) M C which i s t h e same as t h e F e d e r a l r u l e s and which RP provides : " ( b ) I n v o l u n t a r y Dismissal: E f f e c t t h e r e o f . For f a i l u r e of t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r t o comply w i t h t h e s e r u l e s o r any o r d e r o f c o u r t , a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l o f a n a c t i o n o r o f any c l a i m a g a i n s t him." Link v. Wabash R. Co., S C t 1386. 370 U 626, 8 L ed 2d 734, 82 S T h i s c a s e had been on a p p e a l and a d i s m i s s a l was d e l i v e r e d and i t was t h e o l d e s t c a s e on t h e t r i a l c a l endar. The p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y t e l e p h o n e d and s a i d h e could n o t a t t e n d a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e and t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t no f u r t h e r n o t i c e would b e r e q u i r e d t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n b u t even t h a t c a s e n o t e d t h a t due p r o c e s s must b e a f f o r d e d t h e p l a i n t i f f . "Nor does t h e absence o f n o t i c e as t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of dismissal o r t h e f a i l u r e t o h o l d an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g n e c e s s a r i l y r e n d e r such a d i s m i s s a l v o i d . It i s t r u e , o f c o u r s e , t h a t ' t h e fundamental requirement o f due pro- c e s s i s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d upon such n o t i c e and p r o c e e d i n g s as a r e adequate t o s a f e guard t h e r i g h t f o r which t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l Anderson Nat. Bank p r o t e c t i o n i s invoked.' v L u c k e t t , 321 U 233, 246, 88 L e d 692, 705, S 64 S C t 599, 151 ALR 824." That c a s e h a s been c r i t c i z e d however and i n 3 1 FRD 619 J u s t i c e Black and J u s t i c e Douglas recommended an amendment t o r e q u i r e n o t i c e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . "As pointed out i n t h e d i s s e n t , p l a i n t i f f had been s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d , and a f a i r system o f j u s t i c e s h o u l d n o t have p e n a l i z e d him because h i s lawyer, t h r o u g h n e g l e c t o r any o t h e r r e a s o n , f a i l e d t o a p p e a r when o r d e r e d . " S o c i e t e I n t e r n a t i o n a l e v. Brownell, 78 S C t 1078, 357 U 197 2 L Ed. 1255. S Power t o d i s m i s s under Rule 37 (Discovery ~ e f u s a l ) has been h e l d t o r e q u i r e n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g . "The p r o v i s i o n s o f Rule 37 which a r e h e r e i n v o l v e d must be r e a d i n l i g h t of t h e prov i s i o n s o f t h e F i f t h Amendment t h a t no person s h a l l b e d e p r i v e d of p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s of law, and more p a r t i c u l a r l y a g a i n s t t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h i s Court i n Hovey v E l l i o t t , 167 U 409, 4 2 L ed 215, S 17 S C t 841, and Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 US 322, 53 L ed 530, 29 S C t 370, 1 5 Ann Cas 645. These d e c i s i o n s establish that there are constitutional l i m i t a t i o n s upon t h e power of c o u r t s , even i n a i d o f t h e i r own v a l i d p r o c e s s e s , t o dismiss an a c t i o n without affording a p a r t y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s of h i s cause." Smotherman vs. C h r i s t i a n s o n , 59 Mont. 212, 195 Pac. 1106. "It may o r may n o t be t r u e t h a t p l a i n t i f f , w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t c a u s e , f a i l e d t o prosecute t h i s a c t i o n with reasonable diligence. The r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a n y t h i n g which r e f l e c t s upon t h e s u b j e c t . I f he d i d s o f a i l , then application t o dismiss f o r t h a t r e a s o n would have b e e n p r o p e r , b u t such a p p l i c a t i o n would n o t b e grounded upon sect i o n 6714, above. ( S t a t e S a v i n g s Bank v. A l b e r t s o n , 39 Mont. 4 1 4 , 102 Pac. 6 9 2 . ) " 2B B a r r o n & H o l t z o f f , Rule 4 1 $917. "Indeed t h e r e a r e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s upon t h e power o f a c o u r t , even i n a i d o f i t s own v a l i d p r o c e s s e s , t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g a p a r t y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e merits o f h i s cause." Moore on F e d e r a l P r o c e d u r e , Rule 4 1 ( b ) , 1 1 8 ( c ) . 2B B a r r o n & H o l t z o f f , 1 4 4 $918. "It has b e e n s a i d on t h e one hand t h a t dismissal w i l l n o t b e o r d e r e d u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , and on t h e o t h e r t h a t i f t h e delay i s unreasonable, p r e j u d i c e w i l l b e presumed. P r o b a b l y t h e sound answer i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t need n o t show p r e j u d i c e , b u t t h a t t h e c o u r t w i l l cons i d e r t h e p r e j u d i c e , i f any t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n determining whether t o excuse p l a i n t i f f ' s failure." B. CAN THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISS A COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE UNDER 4 1 ( b ) MRCP WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT? J a r v a v s . U S , 280 F 2 892. " O f c o u r s e , t h e c a s e may b e d i f f e r e n t i f t h e government s u f f e r e d some p a r t i c u l a r p r e j u d i c e i n t h e p e r i o d J u n e 2 9 , t o August 13, 1959. I f such p r e j u d i c e i s c l a i m e d , some proof should be offered." Sykes v s . US, 290 F 2 555. "The e x c u s e s of c o u n s e l f o r n o t p r e s s i n g t h e c a s e a r e n o t t o o good, b u t t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t t o abandon t h e c a s e . And t h e p o l i c y o f t h e law i s t o t r y c a s e s on t h e i r m e r i t s . Dismissal i s what c o u n s e l d e s e r v e s . The c l i e n t d e s e r v e s a l i t t l e b e t t e r . . . if t h e government can show some p a r t i c u l a r p r e j u d i c e s u f f e r e d i n t h e s i x months and 28 days i n q u e s t i o n , t h e n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a t l i b e r t y t o a g a i n c o n s i d e r whether t h e a c t i o n s h o u l d be dismissed." C. SHOULD THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS1 ACTIONS BOTH BE REVIEWED I N DETERMINING WHETHER THE ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED? Huffmaster v. United S t a t e s . (1960). C i t e as 186 F.Supp. 120 "On a p p e a l , Judge Medina s a i d , i n a cogent p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e law, t h a t t h e c r u c i a l t e s t under Rule 41(b) i s whether t h e r e h a s been r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h e a c t i o n , b u t t h a t l a c k o f p r e j u d i c e t o d e f e n d a n t may be c o n s i d e r e d i n c a s e s o f modera t e o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t . The a p p l i c a t i o n o f Rule 41(b) i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h t h e C o u r t , and t h e r e a r e no r i g i d time l i m i t s which e s t a b l i s h l a c k o f due d i l i g e n c e when t h e y a r e exceeded." Kujich v s . L i l l i e , 127 Mont. 125, 260 P 2d 383. "It would a p p e a r t h a t t h e f a c t s s o s e t f o r t h i n p l a i n t i f f l s counter a f f i d a v i t s , s t a n d i n g u n c o n t r o v e r t e d , amply r e f u t e any showing of p r e j u d i c e claimed t o have been suffered b y t h e d e f e n d a n t b y r e a s o n o f n o t h a v i n g d i s p o s e d o f h i s demurrers more exp e d i t i o u s l y and f o r n o t h a v i n g r e q u i r e d d e f e n d a n t ta answer t h e c o m p 2 a i n t s ' ~ o h a t t t h e a c t i o n s would s o o n e r become a t i s s u e and ready f o r t r i a l . Mere l a p s e of t i m e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f t o j u s t i f y d i s m i s s a l of t h e a c t i o n s , S t a t e Savings Bank v. A l b e r t s o n , 39 Mont. 4 1 4 , 102 Pac. 692; E l d r i d g e v. Idaho S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y , 54 Idaho 213, 30 Pac. ( 2 d ) , 781, 784... Defendant was p r i v i l e g e d t o n o t i c e h i s demurrers f o r h e a r i n g b u t t h i s he d i d n o t do n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t he had t h e same right t o press the actions f o r t r i a l as had t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Wright v. Howe, 46 Utah 588, 150 Pac. 956, L.R.A. 1916B, 1 1 0 4 . " S t a t e Savings Bank v. A l b e r t s o n e t a l . , 39 Mont. 4 1 4 , 102 Pac. 692. " E v i d e n t l y c o u n s e l r e l i e d s o l e l y upon t h e f a c t , a p p a r e n t from t h e f i l e s and r e c o r d s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and w i t h i n t h e knowl e d g e o f t h e c o u r t , t h a t t h e a c t i o n had been pending s i n c e t h e f i l i n g of t h e complaint on J u l y 31, 1903, and deemed t h e l a p s e o f t i m e s u f f i c i e n t t o move t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n . Mere l a p s e o f time i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f t o j u s t i f y a dismissal." Cremer vs. B r a a t e n , 151 Mont. 1 8 , 438 P. 2d 553. " P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e a c t i o n could n o t b e d i s m i s s e d as defendant has shown no i n j u r y by t h e d e l a y . When a p l a i n t i f f h a s s l e p t on h i s cause f o r o v e r twelve y e a r s t h e law presumes i n j u r y and p l a c e s t h e burden on t h e p l a i n t i f f t o show good c a u s e f o r t h e d e l a y . S t a t e e x r e l . J o h n s t o n e v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 132 Mont. 377, 319 P. 2d 957." J a n g u l a v s . United S t a t e s Rubber Co., 149 Mont. 2 4 1 , 425 P. 2d 319. "There i s s t r e n g t h i n a p p e l l e e ' s argument t h a t i t might b e p r e j u d i c e d by t h e p a s s a g e o f t i m e ; b u t t h i s argument i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y supported f a c t u a l l y t o overbalance t h e certainty of p r e j u d i c e t o a p p e l l a n t i f d e p r i v e d e n t i r e l y of a r e t r i a l as a u t h o r i z e d by o u r previous decision." D. CAN THE COURT VIOLATE ITS OWN RULES A TO DISMISSAL S FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE? I w i l l ask t h i s court t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of D i s t r i c t E i g h t e e n Rule 7 o f Court Rules which p r o v i d e s : "Any c a s e passed t w i c e on j u r y o r judge s e t t i n g w i l l be d i s m i s s e d by t h e Judge f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n . There w i l l be no f o r - ma1 d i s m i s s a l c a l e n d a r . Any lawyer w i s h i n g t o ' s a v e ' such a c a s e passed t w i c e must f i l e w i t h i n f i v e ( 5 ) days a motion f o r good c a u s e t o t h a t e f f e c t and s e t i t f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h i s Court ." The Court Rules have formed t h e b a s i s f o r d i s m i s s a l . J a r v a vs. U ( s u p r a ) and Sykes v s . US ( s u p r a ) S However i n t h o s e c a s e s and i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e mere v i o l a t i o n o f a r u l e h a s n o t , p e r s e , e n t i t l e d t h e c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e law s u i t . F e d e r a l Deposit I n s . Corp. v s . Lotsch, 3 FRD 464. "There was o v e r one y e a r w i t h o u t proceedi n g s i n v i o l a t i o n o f Rule 2 4 o f D i s t r i c t Court. A d i s m i s s a l was r e v e r s e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t s t r i g h t t o r e q u e s t a s e p a r a t e t r i a l and p l a i n t i f f t i m e t o comply." Alamance I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v. F i l e n e 1 s ( C A l s t b 1961) 291 F2d 1 4 2 , 145, 4 FR Serv2d 41a.24, Case 1. "Courts e x i s t t o s e r v e t h e p a r t i e s , and n o t t o s e r v e themselves, o r t o p r e s e n t a r e c o r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o d i s p a t c h of b u s i n e s s . Comp l a i n t s h e a r d as t o t h e law's d e l a y s a r i s e because t h e d e l a y has i n j u r e d l i t i g a n t s , n o t t h e c o u r t s . For t h e c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r e x p e d i t i o n f o r i t s own sake ' r e g a r d l e s s ' o f t h e l i t i g a n t s i s t o emphasize secondary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o v e r primary." SM AY U MR The p l a i n t i f f made a t i m e l y f i l i n g o f h i s complaint and s e r v e d t h e summons t h e n e x t day. A l l delays a f t e r t h a t time were occasioned b y t h e d e f e n d a n t s 1 f a i l u r e t o bring the matter t o issue. The p l a i n t i f f was i n - volved i n o t h e r l i t i g a t i o n w i t h t h e same d e f e n d a n t and h i s o n l y a c t of ommission was h i s f a i l u r e t o d e f a u l t t h e defendant. A d i f f e r e n t a t t o r n e y was h a n d l i n g a q u i e t t i t l e c a s e a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y s o f r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e were n o t n o t i - f i e d n o r p r e s e n t i n t h e courtroom when t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y v o c a l l y moved t o d i s m i s s . The r e c o r d shows no evidence o f damage o r p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . Mere d e l a y i s n o t c o n c l u s i v e p r o o f o f l a c k o f prosecut i o n u n l e s s t h e d e l a y i s e x c e e d i n g l y long. If the d e f e n d a n t d e s i r e d t o t e r m i n a t e t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t him he was e q u a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b r i n g i n g t h e m a t t e r t o i s s u e and t r i a l and h a v i n g t h e m a t t e r d i s p o s e d o f . W do n o t mean t o i n f e r t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s e Idaho c o u n s e l o r l o c a l c o u n s e l i n any way were n e g l i g e n t i n t h e i r d u t i e s ; however t h e p l a i n t i f f c e r t a i n l y c o u l d n o t f i l e h i s own n o t i c e o f i n t e n t i o n t o e n t e r d e f a u l t when he was r e p r e s e n t e d by a n a t t o r n e y and t h e p e n a l t y of d i s m i s s i n g a $26,000. l a w s u i t i s a h a r s h one t o a p l a i n t i f f whose c l a i m i s now b a r r e d by t h e f i v e year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r accounts. The c o u r t has a n o b l i g a t i o n and d e s i r e t o c l e a r i t s own docket b u t a t t o r n e y s have a r i g h t t o r e l y on t h e l o c a l p r a c t i c e and r u l e s b e i n g followed. This m a t t e r was n e v e r s e t f o r t r i a l s o i t n e v e r h a s been p a s s e d o v e r t w i c e as l o c a l r u l e s r e q u i r e b e f o r e d i s - missal. Respectfully submitted, ALLEN L. McALEAR # 3 S t o r y Block Bozeman, Montana / \ r Attorney f o r P l a i n t i f f and ~ p ~ e l l a n t CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, ALLEN L. McALEAR, a t t o r n e y f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f and a p p e l l a n t i n t h e above e n t i t l e d m a t t e r , h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t on t h i s 1 5 t h day o f A p r i l , 1974, I s e r v e d t h e f o r e g o i n g APPELLANT'S BRIEF upon t h e d e f e n d a n t and r e s p o n d e n t by d e p o s i t i n g a f u l l , t r u e and c o r r e c t copy t h e r e o f , i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s mail, f i r s t c l a s s postage prepaid, addressed t o t h e i r attorneys of r e c o r d , p r o s e , a s f o l l o w s : BROWN & GILBERT G a l l a t i n Block S u i t e 5 40 East Main Bozernan, Montana 59715

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.