MONT DEPT OF BUS REG v HARTFOR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13053 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 MONTANA DEPARTMENT O BUSINESS REGUTATION, F MILK CONTROL DIVISION, on behalf of t h e STATE O MONTANA, e t a l . , F P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vs HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, e t a l . , Defendant and Respondent. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M N A A DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, OTN MILK CONTROL DIVISION, R e l a t o r and P l a i n t i f f , 'VS - BEST DAIRY FARMS, a Montana Corporation, Respondent and Defendant. 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 , D. Honorable ~ a c k Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : James H. ElcFarland argued, Helena, Montana Geoffrey B r a z i e r argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Drysdale, McTJean 6 S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana James J. S c r e n a r argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Filed : December 10, 1975 Mr. 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 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 i n G a l l a t i n County, t h e Honorable J a c k D. Shanstrom p r e s i d i n g . The summary judgment was f o r d e f e n d a n t s i n two c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e s . P l a i n t i f f i s t h e Montana Department of Business Regulat i o n , Milk C o n t r o l D i v i s i o n . Defendants a r e Best Dairy Farms, a c o r p o r a t i o n , l i c e n s e d and bonded a s a d i s t r i b u t o r under t h e Montana Milk C o n t r o l Act, and i t s s u r e t i e s under t h e s t a t u t o r y milk d i s t r i b u t o r ' s bond. P l a i n t i f f and c e r t a i n named milk producers f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t H a r t f o r d Accident and Indemnity Company and Fund under s e c t i o n 27-426,, R.C.M. ire man's 1947, t o e n f o r c e payment t o milk producers supplying Best Dairy Farms f o r t h e i r p r o d u c t . Subsequently p l a i n t i f f f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t Best Dairy Farms and t h e c a s e s were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r t r i a l . T r i a l was had w i t h o u t a j u r y and summary judgment was g r a n t e d t o d e f e n d a n t s and t h e c a s e d i s missed on i t s m e r i t s . During a p e r i o d between September 1969 and A p r i l 1970, an a u d i t of t h e monthly r e p o r t s and s u p p o r t i n g p l a n t r e c o r d s of Best Dairy Farms was made by a u d i t o r s of t h e Eoard of Milk C o n t r o l . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a u d i t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e sum of $14,686.40 had been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y deducted from t h e payments t o 24 producers of Best Dairy Farms, and shown a s "miscellaneous d a i r y charges". The d e d u c t i o n s were based on $0.03 p e r hundredweight (from $3.00 p e r hundredweight) on all milk s o l d by t h e producers t o Best Dairy Farms. The "miscellaneous d a i r y charges" were i n f a c t an amount agreed t o by t h e producers t o r e n t a machine f o r packaging milk i n one g a l l o n c o n t a i n e r s i n o r d e r t o meet c o m p e t i t i o n and s o t h a t t h e producers would c o n t i n u e t o r e c e i v e a b e t t e r p r i c e f o r package milk r a t h e r than II cheese milk" which had a lower p r i c e . The packaging machine was l e a s e d f o r $245 per month and t h e producers o r a l l y agreed t o pay t h e l e a s e p r i c e by a d e d u c t i o n of t h e $0.03 p e r hundredweight. T h i s maneuver, a s o r t of c o o p e r a t i v e v e n t u r e by t h e d i s t r i b u t o r and i t s producers by o r a l agreement, was r e p o r t e d a s "miscellaneous d a i r y charges". I t i s t h i s deduction t h a t t h e Board determined was a d i l u t i o n of minimum p r i c e paid t o t h e producers and t h u s a v i o l a t i o n . Those d e d u c t i o n were made from May 1965 t o t h e completion of t h e a u d i t . Following a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , t h e d i s t r i b u t o r was o r d e r e d t o r e p a y t h e t o t a l amount of $14,686.40 t o t h e 24 producers. Best Dairy Farms met w i t h t h e producers and s u b s e q u e n t l y i s s u e d checks t o each. h i s refund. Only one producer o u t of t h e 24 a c c e p t e d The o t h e r s e i t h e r cashed t h e check and w r o t e o u t t h e i r p e r s o n a l check back t o Best Dairy Farms o r simply d i d n o t p i c k up t h e i r checks. They each f e l t morally o b l i g a t e d t o a b i d e by t h e i r o r i g i n a l agreement t o r e n t t h e packaging machine and d i d n o t o r a r e n o t now c l a i m i n g - a y--h i n g a g a i n s t Rest Dairy Farms t o r i t s bonding companies. With t h i s remarkable s t a t e of a f f a i r s , t h e Board has pursued t h e m a t t e r a l l t h e way t o t h i s Court c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e "miscellaneous d a i r y charges" "JC JC ? ; was n o t h i n g more than an a r t f u l l y c o n t r i v e d s u b t e r f u g e whereby t h e primary means of a c h i e v i n g t h e purpose of t h e Act were e f f e c t i v e l y circumvented. If To add more t o t h e puzzle of why t h e c a s e i s h e r e , B e s t Dairy Farms s o l d o u t and i s no l o n g e r i n b u s i n e s s . The ~ o a r d ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l s t a t e s t h a t "The end r e s u l t was t h a t funds t o which some producers were e n t i t l e d under t h e Act r e p o s e among t h e a s s e t s and r e s o u r c e s of t h e d i s t r i b u t o r and have inured t o i t s b e n e f i t , a r e s u l t which none of i t s c o m p e t i t o r s i s known t o enjoy. 11 The Board u r g e s two i s s u e s on +peal, one o f which i s controlling. That i s s u e i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment and d i s m i s s i n g t h e c a s e on i t s m e r i t s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n e f f e c t found t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t i c i a b l e i s s u e presented, N producer, a l l e g e d t o have been o s h o r t e d , has f i l e d any claim---although r e q u e s t e d t o do so a s s e c t i o n 27-426, R.C.M. 1947, provides. The s u r e t i e s a r e c l e a r l y exonerated a s provided i n s e c t i o n 30-406, R.C.M. 1947, by performance by Best Dairy Farms i n complying w i t h t h e refund order. To f i n d any j u s t i c i a b l e i s s u e i s l i k e g r a s p i n g s p a g h e t t i . The end r e s u l t i s t h e same--the d i s t r i b u t o r paid---the except one---paid baclc. producers, N one owes anyone anything. o The Board urges "public p o l i c y " a s r e q u i r i n g i t t o pursue the matter. The law does n o t r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s , s e c t i o n 49-124, R.C.M. 1947. Nor does i t r e q u i r e i m p o s s i b i l i t i e s , s e c t i o n 49-123, R.C.M. 1947. I t does d i s r e g a r d t r i f l e s , s e c t i o n 49-125, R.C.M. 1947. The purpose of t h e Milk Control Act of providing a con- t i n u o u s source of pure, wholesome milk i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ( T i t l e 27, Chapter 4 , Revised Codes of Montana, 1947) and t o e l i m i n a t e u n f a i r and demoralizing t r a d e p r a c t i c e s i n t h e milk i n d u s t r y has been accomplished. Nothing remains. Finding no e r r o r , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . 'add Justices.

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.