PALMQUIST v ALLARDYCE PET CORP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12565 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN 1974 JOHN A. PALMQUIST and BARBARA K. PALMQUIST, husband and w i f e , and WAYNE W. WHITNEY and HELEN WHITNEY, husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, ALLARDYCE PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a Colorado c o r p o r a t i o n , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. W. W . Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Berg, ~ ' C o n n e l l ,Angel and Andriolo, Bozeman, Montana Charles F Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana . For Respondents: Hughes, Bennett and Cain, Helena, Montana George T. Bennett argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : January 15, 1974 Decided: F i l e d : APR APf? - 1 1974 - 11974 Clerk Mr. 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 C o u r t . Defendant, A l l a r d y c e Petroleum C o r p o r a t i o n , b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from a summary judgment e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f G a l l a t i n County i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s , John A . P a l m q u i s t and Barbara K. P a l m q u i s t , husband and w i f e , o r d e r i n g s p e c i f i e d p e r formance of a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p u r c h a s e of l a n d . The c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1971, and p r o v i d e d f o r p u r c h a s e by p l a i n t i f f s from d e f e n d a n t of "Lot No. 14" i n t h e " B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n " l o c a t e d i n G a l l a t i n County, Montana, n e a r t h e " B r i d g e r Bowl" s k i a r e a . Under t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f s p a i d $100 e a r n e s t money and a g r e e d t o pay $5,900 a s t h e b a l a n c e of t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e : "Balance t o be p a i d when P l a t i s approved and Covenants a r e f i l e d and t i t l e and Warranty Deed a r e given." "Lot No. 1 4 " r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n t r a c t w a s s o d e s c r i b e d on a " P r e l i m i n a r y Road and Lot P l a n " which had n o t been approved and r e c o r d e d a s a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t i n G a l l a t i n County a t t h e t i m e t h e c o n t r a c t w a s signed. I n i t s answer d e f e n d a n t contended t h e G a l l a t i n County c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g board and t h e c o u n t y commiss i o n e r s o f G a l l a t i n County r e f u s e d t o approve t h a t p r e l i m i n a r y r o a d and l o t p l a n , which n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e r e d e s i g n of t h e B r i d g e r Pines Subdivision p l a t . The r e d e s i g n e d p l a t of B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n e l i m i n a t e d Lot No. 1 4 and d e s i g n a t e d t h e a r e a it p r e v i o u s l y o c c u p i e d a s "open s p a c e " . N c o n t e n t i o n s were made by o d e f e n d a n t c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n p l a t c o u l d have been r e d e s i g n e d and approved t o r e t a i n t h e o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n a t e d Lot No. 1 4 . R a t h e r , it s i m p l y contended t h a t t h r o u g h no f a u l t of d e f e n d a n t , t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t was n o t a p p r o v e d , making t h e s a l e c o n t r a c t i m p o s s i b l e t o perform. P l a i n t i f f s contended t h a t t h e r e d e s i g n of t h e B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s o as t o e l i m i n a t e Lot No. 1 4 was a " s l e i g h t of hand t r i c k " done i n a n a t t e m p t t o d e f e a t t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t and t h u s e n a b l e d e f e n d a n t t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l l y a p p r e c i a t e d v a l u e s of t h i s a s r e c r e a t i o n l a n d . There a r e no f a c t s i n t h e record before t h i s Court t o support e i t h e r contention. The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e summary judgment g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c performance o f t h e c o n t r a c t was p r o p e r on t h e p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , e v i d e n c e , b r i e f s and h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e d i s t ri c t c o u r t . Defendant c o n t e n d s t h e h e r e i n a b o v e quoted c o n t r a c t l a n g uage amounted t o a c o n t r a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t . m e r i t i n t h i s contention. W e f i n d no I t i s a p r i n c i p l e o f c o n t r a c t law t h a t a mere s t i p u l a t i o n o r c o v e n a n t i n a c o n t r a c t w i l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y where a f o r f e i t u r e would r e s u l t and where it a p p e a r s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t , i f d e s i r e d , c o u l d have been p r o v i d e d f o r by e x p r e s s agreement. C o n t r a c t s B 338; 12 C a l . J u r . 2 d 17A C . J . S . C o n t r a c t s B 171; 17 Am J u r 2d, C o n t r a c t s S 321. Defendant c o n t e n d s a l s o t h a t t h e u n f o r s e e a b l e a c t of t h e G a l l a t i n County c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g board and t h e c o u n t y commiss i o n e r s of G a l l a t i n County i n d i s a p p r o v i n g t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t o f B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n gave r i s e t o t h e d e f e n s e of c o n t r a c t u a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y a s a m a t t e r of law. tention. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s con- I n Hein v . Fox, 1 2 6 Mont. 514, 254 P.2d 1076, t h i s Court s a i d : "Then t o o , where a p a r t y e n t e r s i n t o a c o n t r a c t knowing t h a t p e r m i s s i o n of government o f f i c e r s w i l l be r e q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f performance, t h a t s u c h p e r m i s s i o n was n o t f o r t h c o m i n g when r e q u i r e d d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n e x c u s e f o r nonperformance. See 17 C.J.S. C o n t r a c t s , s e c . 463, page 953; S t a n d a r d O i l Co. of N e w York v. C e n t r a l Dredging Co. 252 N.Y. 545, 170 N.E. 137." See a l s o Corbin on C o n t r a c t s , Vol. 6 , B 1346; 84 ALR2d W c a n n o t , upon t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , a f f i r m t h e remedy e of s p e c i f i c performance, which i s , under t h e law, a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e l e g a l remedy of compensation and c a n be o r d e r e d o n l y on e q u i t a b l e grounds. There i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d from which t o d e t e r m i n e whether s p e c i f i c performa n c e a s d i r e c t e d would work an i n o r d i n a t e i n c o n v e n i e n c e o r hards h i p upon t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y o r upon i n n o c e n t t h i r d p e r s o n s who may have p u r c h a s e d l o t s i n t h e B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n a s i t i s now p l a t t e d . I n t e r i o r S e c u r i t i e s Co. v. Campbell, 55 Mont. 459, 178 P . 582; 8 1 C.J.S. S p e c i f i c Performance 7 1 Am J u r 2d, S p e c i f i c Performance §§ §§ 1 7 , 18 and 19; 75 and 76. The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c p e r formance of conveyance of Lot 1 4 a s o r i g i n a l l y p l a t t e d i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s c a u s e remanded f o r / W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e , Justices Justice

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.