SNYDER v McKINLEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12630 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A F H F OTN 1974 T O A SNYDER, HMS P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t , JAMES McKINLEY, HOWARD H M E and A MR ED SPANKUTH, a s Commissioners of R a v a l l i County, Montana, Respondents and Respondents. Apneal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Edward Dussault, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Tipp and Hoven, Missoula, Montana Vernon Hoven argued, Missoula, Montana F o r Respondents : Murray and H o l t , Missoula, Montana Douglas G. Harkin argued, Hamilton, Montana Submitted: February 27, 1974 Decided :MAY 6 1914 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by p e t i t i o n e r from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f o u r 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 of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of R a v a l l i , dismissing a peremptory w r i t of mandate which ordered t h e Board of County Commissioners t o hold an e l e c t i o n . The described a r e a was owned by a non-resident Utah corporation. There w e r e no i n d i - v i d u a l f r e e h o l d e r s i n t h e e n t i r e a r e a , even though a s appears h e r e i n a f t e r t h e r e were r e s i d e n t s and e l e c t o r s . The matter w a s o r i g i n a l l y presented t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on an agreed statement of f a c t s which noted, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t 51 q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s and r e s i d e n t s of Pinedale community signed a p e t i t i o n , d i r e c t e d t o t h e county commissioners, responde n t s , and h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Board, r e q u e s t i n g them t o hold an e l e c t i o n f o r t h e purpose of i n c o r p o r a t i n g a c i t y o r town. 1972. The p e t i t i o n w a s submitted t o t h e Board on May 23, Three months l a t e r on September 1, 1972, t h e Board denied t h e p e t i t i o n . O September 8, 1972, p e t i t i o n e r and n a p p e l l a n t , Tom Snyder, f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate t o compel t h e Board t o c a l l an e l e c t i o n pursuant t o s e c t i o n 11-203, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e r e a f t e r t h e Court i s s u e d an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t f o r t h e Board t o show cause why a permanent w r i t should n o t i s s u e ; by s t i p u l a t i o n of counsel t h e matter w a s continued u n t i l t h e above mentioned agreed statement of f a c t s was f i l e d a t which t i m e t h e t r i a l judge Emmet Glore took t h e matter under advisement and gave counsel t i m e t o submit b r i e f s . O December 29, 1972, Judge Glore issued an order granting the n w r i t of mandate but s a i d order was n o t f i l e d i n the o f f i c e of the c l e r k of court of Ravalli County u n t i l January 4, 1973, some four days a f t e r Judge Glore l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n due t o h i s retirement on December 31, 1972. After studying several decisions of t h i s Court, counsel f o r both s i d e s agreed t h a t Judge Glore' s order was void, and Judge Dussault, who succeeded Judge Glore, assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . On February 13, 1973, Judge Dussault, having had the cause submitted to him, ordered an e l e c t i o n , but t h i s order was stayed on April 6 , when s p e c i a l counsel requested time t o submit briefs. O April 13, 1974, Judge Dussault s e t aside h i s order n of February 13 and d i r e c t e d t h a t c e r t a i n things be done p r i o r to h i s hearing the matter again, one of which would have allowed p e t i t i o n e r t o submit a new p e t i t i o n t o respondent Board. The p e t i t i o n e r refused t o submit a new p e t i t i o n so the respondent Board, following Judge Dussault' s order, provided a new census which required more information than the previous census, and the i n h a b i t a n t s of the a r e a refused t o answer a l l but four of s a i d questions a l l e g i n g t h a t t h i s was an i n t e r f erence with t h e i r personal l i b e r t i e s . In the meantime, and unknown t o any of counsel, the d i s t r i c t judge, o r the p a r t i e s , the Legislature had passed c e r t a i n amendments t o section 11-203, R.C.M. 1947. These amendments, i n t e r e s t i n g l y , were contained i n two separate a c t s , Chapter 86, Laws of 1973 and Chapter 515, Laws of 1973. Neither amendatory enactment mentioned o r incorporated the changes made by the other . The amendatory enactments d i d n o t con£ l i c t 515 w a s made e f f e c t i v e on passage and approval. by t h e Governor on A p r i l 4, 1973. . Chapter It w a s signed Thus, as Judge Dussault assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n he w a s t o t a l l y unaware of t h e new provisions. 1973. He d i d n o t become aware of them u n t i l August 20, More w i l l be s a i d about t h e s e enactments h e r e i n a f t e r . On June 21, 1973, a f t e r hearing arguments on c e r t a i n motions t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d respondent Board t o hold an e l e c t i o n pursuant t o s e c t i o n 11-204, R.C.M. 1947. A w r i t of mandate w a s served on t h e Board on J u l y 13, 1973, with t h e r e t u r n being dated J u l y 17, 1973. Some eleven days l a t e r on J u l y 26, 1973, t h e Board f i l e d motions f o r (1) extension of time t o f i l e n o t i c e of appeal, (2) r e q u e s t t o reopen hearings f o r a d d i t i o n a l testimony, (3) and f o r permission t o p r e s e n t addit i o n a l testimony. The c o u r t granted t h e ~ o a r d ' s e q u e s t t o r extend t i m e f o r n o t i c e of appeal on August 10, 1973, which was followed by p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o quash t h e o r d e r extendi n g time, dated August 17, 1973, On August 24, 1973, t h e c o u r t denied p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o quash and t h e ~ o a r d ' smotion t o h e a r a d d i t i o n a l evidence. Then on September 12, 1973, t h e Board f i l e d a motion t o dismiss t h e w r i t of mandate and t h e c o u r t on September 18, 1973, r u l e d t h a t t h e o r d e r of J u l y 13, 1973, d i r e c t i n g t h a t an e l e c t i o n be held, w a s dismissed and t h i s appeal r e s u l t s . Counsel f o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r , reviewing t h e h i s t o r y of t h e l i t i g a t i o n , r e f e r s t o i t a s e i t h e r a comedy of e r r o r s o r viewed i n the eyes of the appellant, a tragedy of e r r o r s f o r on t h r e e separate occasions the question involved was determined by the court only t o be s e t aside. The respondent Board argues t h a t i t took timely a c t i o n a f t e r t h e w r i t issued on June 21, 1973, when i t learned, unbeknown t o a l l p a r t i e s i n the action and the judge, t h a t the Legisl a t u r e had amended section 11-203, R.C.M. 1947, by two acts-- Chapter 86, Laws of 1973, which provided t h a t no area could be incorporated within t h r e e miles of a presently incorporated area; and Chapter 515, Laws of 1973, s t a t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r incorporation now requires the signatures of 213 of the qualif i e d e l e c t o r s against 50 e l e c t o r s under the o l d Act, a canvas from house t o house must be conducted a s compared to no specif i e d type of canvas under t h e o l d Act; t h a t there must be 150 e l e c t o r s i n each of the several wards where no number was required under the o l d law. A l l of these changes were made with an e f f e c t i v e d a t e of April 4, 1973, on one Act and July 1, 1973, on the other. From the foregoing, i t i s seen t h a t Judge Dussault had c l e a r l y been unaware of the changes i n the law and j u s t a s c l e a r l y had been i n c o r r e c t i n ordering an e l e c t i o n on a moot petition, This, aside from any previous determinations. The Commissioners moved t o dismiss t h e peremptory w r i t of mandate under Rule 60 (b) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ,P. p a r t t h a t : "On motion *** which provides i n the court may r e l i e v e a p a r t y *** from a f i n a l judgment, order, o r proceeding f o r the following reasons: *** (6) any o t h e r reason j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f from the operation of the judgment. * * *" Several i s s u e s a r e s e t f o r t h f o r our consideration: (1) Did the court e r r i n granting an extension of time t o the defendants i n which t o appeal i t s order of August 10, 1973, and denying respondent ~ o a r d ' smotion t o quash t h e order granting such extension by i t s order of August 24, 1973? (2) Did the lower c o u r t e r r i n making i t s order of September 18, 1973, suspending the order d i r e c t i n g defendants to c a l l a s p e c i a l e l e c t i o n a s provided f o r i n i t s order of June 21, 1973? (3) Did the c o u r t e r r i n dismissing t h e w r i t of mandate heretofore issued a s s e t f o r t h i n i t s order of September 28, 1973? The foregoing i s s u e s a l l involve technical time l i m i t s and do n o t embrace a consideration of t h e correctness of t h e f i n a l decision of the d i s t r i c t court. I n view of the new law i n e f f e c t a t the time, t o hold an e l e c t i o n a t t h a t time under a p e t i t i o n c l e a r l y n o t v a l i d would be an i d l e a c t n o t t o say expensive. -- The law does n o t r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s . Rule 60(b) (6) M.R.Civ.P., a s p a r t i a l l y quoted above provides f o r s e t t i n g a s i d e a judgment o r order within a reasonable time. Certainly under t h e f a c t s here, within time allowed f o r an appeal, the time was reasonable. The Comissioners moved to dismiss the peremptory w r i t of mandate promptly a f t e r being advised of t h e amendments t o the c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e s . The appellant here r e l i e s on Federal Land Bk. v. G a l l a t i n C o ., 84 Mont. 98, 274 P. 288, f o r the proposition t h a t the Court w i l l n o t g r a n t r e l i e f f o r mistakes of l a w . That c a s e was i n 1929, long b e f o r e t h e adoption of Rule 60 (b) ( 6 ) and i s d i s t i n guishable i n o t h e r ways. It does n o t apply here. W e have reviewed t h e i s s u e s presented and f i n d no m e r i t . Any e l e c t i o n h e l d f o r purposes of incorporation must comply with t h e l a w and t o o r d e r an e l e c t i o n now under t h e o l d p e t i t i o n would be meaningless. Accordingly, t h e o r d e r appealed from i s affirmed and each p a r t y w i l l bear t h e i r own c o s t s . Justice WE CONCUR: - Chief J u s t i c e . .

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.