MORGEN OSWOOD v U S FID GUAR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 12943 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1975 MORGEN & OSWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO,, I N C , , a Montana Corporation, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g , Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J a r d i n e , Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great F a l l s , Montana J a c k L, Lewis argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent : Berg, O'Connell, Angel and Andriolo, Bozeman, Montana Charles F, Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: A p r i l 25, 1975 MAY 1 4 1975 Nr. 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 an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade County,changing venue from t h a t county t o G a l l a t i n County. P l a i n t i f f Morgen & Oswood C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., I n c . i s a g e n e r a l con- t r a c t o r w i t h i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i n Great F a l l s , Montana. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n i n Cascade County a g a i n s t defendant United S t a t e s F i d e l i t y and Guaranty Company, a Maryland c o r p o r a t i o n , ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s USF&G), a s s u r e t y of one P a t r i c k A . H e r r i n g , t o r e c o v e r l o s s and damages i n c u r r e d a s a consequence of ~ e r r i n g ' sf a i l u r e t o perform a s u b c o n t r a c t f o r p l a i n tiff. P l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t r a c t was on a p r o j e c t a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a t Bozeman. The s u b c o n t r a c t was t o perform l a b o r and furnish certain materials. The agreement r e q u i r e d H e r r i n g t o f u r n i s h a s u r e t y bond e q u a l i n an amount t o t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e , c o n d i t i o n a l upon and c o v e r i n g t h e f a i t h f u l performance of t h e terms, p r o v i s i o n s and c o n d i t i o n s of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t agreement. H e r r i n g o b t a i n e d t h e bond w i t h p l a i n t i f f a s o b l i g e e , Herring a s p r i n c i p a l , and defendant a s s u r e t y . The c o n d i t i o n of t h e bond was: "a ;k 9~ That i f t h e s a i d P r i n c i p a l s h a l l w e l l and t r u l y perform and f u l f i l l a l l and e v e r y t h e c o v e n a n t s , condit i o n s , s t i p u l a t i o n s and agreements i n s a i d c o n t r a c t ment i o n e d t o be performed and f u l f i l l e d , and s h a l l keep t h e s a i d Obligee harmless and indemnified from and a g a i n s t a l l and e v e r y c l a i m , demand, judgment, l i e n , c o s t and f e e of e v e r y d e s c r i p t i o n i n c u r r e d i n s u i t s o r o t h e r w i s e a g a i n s t t h e s a i d Obligee, growing o u t of o r i n c u r r e d i n , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of s a i d work a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms of t h e s a i d c o n t r a c t , and s h a l l r e p a y t o t h e s a i d Obligee a l l sums of money which t h e s a i d Obligee may pay t o o t h e r e r s o n s on account of work and l a b o r done o r m a t e r i a l s f u r n i s h e d on o r f o r s a i d c o n t r a c t , and i f t h e s a i d P r i n c i p a l s h a l l pay t o t h e s a i d Obligee a l l damages o r f o r f e i t u r e s which may be s u s t a i n e d by reason of t h e nonperformance o r mal-performance on t h e p a r t of t h e s a i d P r i n c i p a l of any o f t h e c o v e n a n t s , c o n d i t i o n s , s t i p u l a t i o n s and agreements of s a i d c o n t r a c t , then t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be v o i d ; o t h e r w i s e t h e same s h a l l remain i n f u l l f o r c e and v i r t u e . " (Emphasis added). According t o t h e terms and p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s u r e t y bond, H e r r i n g and USF&G agreed t h a t they were j o i n t l y and s e v e r a l l y bound under t h e bond unto p l a i n t i f f . Subsequently, Herring a l l e g e d l y f a i l e d t o f u r n i s h a l l t h e l a b o r , m a t e r i a l s , s k i l l and i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s and f a i l e d t o perform a l l t h e work n e c e s s a r y and i n c i d e n t a l l y r e q u i r e d on t h e job of him under t h e terms and p r o v i s i o n s of h i s s u b c o n t r a c t w i t h p l a i n t i f f . By reason t h e r e o f , p l a . i n t i f f t h e r e a f t e r i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t only USF&G a s s u r e t y of Herring f o r t h e damages i n c u r r e d by plaintiff. By i t s complaint, p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h e c o n d i t i o n o f USF&Gts s u r e t y bond was breached by ~ e r r i n g ' sf a i l u r e t o f u r n i s h t h e r e q u i s i t e l a b o r , e t c . , and h i s f a i l u r e t o perform t h e n e c e s s a r y work, and t h a t a s a consequence USF&G owes p l a i n t i f f t h e damages and l o s s i n c u r r e d by reason of ~ e r r i n g ' sbreach. I n i t s f i r s t appearance, USF&G f i l e d a l t e r n a t i v e motions t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint f o r f a i l u r e t o j o i n Herring a s a p a r t y , t o d i s m i s s t h e complaint f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m , and f o r change of venue supported by an a f f i d a v i t of Herring. By i t s motion f o r change of venue, USF&G sought t o have t h e p l a c e of t r i a l changed from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n Cascade County t o 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: "* * * on t h e grounds and f o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t t h e a c t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a r i s e s o u t of a c o n t r a c t t o be performed by P a t r i c k A . Herring, d / b / a Q u a l i t y Roofing and Sheet Metal, of Bozeman, Montana, a t Bozeman, G a l l a t i n County, Montana, and t h a t although t h e defendant has no r e s i d e n c e i n Montana, r e s i d e n c e f o r venue purposes should be considered t o be t h e r e s i d e n c e of i t s i n s u r e d , P a t r i c k A . Herring, d / b / a Q u a l i t y Roofing and Sheet Metal, whose r e s i d e n c e i s Bozeman, G a l l a t i n County, Montana; t h a t under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 93-2904, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, an a c t i o n i s t o be t r i e d i n t h e county where t h e defendant r e s i d e s a t t h e time of commencement of t h e a c t i o n , o r i n t h e county i n which t h e c o n t r a c t was t o be performed. 11 I n h i s s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a v i t Herring s t a t e d t h a t he was a r e s i d e n t of G a l l a t i n County, t h a t a t t h e times a l l e g e d i n p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint he had conducted b u s i n e s s i n G a l l a t i n County and t h a t h i s s u b c o n t r a c t agreement w i t h p l a i n t i f f was t o have been performed i n G a l l a t i n County. I n h i s a f f i d a v i t , Herring s t a t e s t h a t he may be r e q u i r e d t o indemnify USF&G i f USF&G were t o b e h e l d l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f and t h a t he o b j e c t s t o t h e venue b e i n g i n Cascade County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n Cascade County g r a n t e d USF&G's motion f o r change o f venue and p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h a t o r d e r changing venue. The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether p l a i n t i f f can s u e i n i t s county of r e s i d e n c e a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t e s u r e t y when t h e a c t i o n i s on a bond a s s u r i n g a s u b c o n t r a c t which was t o be performed i n a n o t h e r county and t h e r e s i d e n c e of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r i s i n a n o t h e r county. W n o t e h e r e t h a t defendant USF&G u r g e s a n o t h e r i s s u e i s e whether Herring, t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r , i s an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y ; b u t , we r e j e c t t h a t immediately f o r r e a s o n s which appear h e r e i n after. The s u r e t y bond s p e c i f i c a l l y and c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e bond upon which p l a i n t i f f i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t USF&G i s a j o i n t and s e v e r a l o b l i g a t i o n of Herring and USF&G. having a II Parties j o i n t and s e v e r a l f ' o b l i g a t i o n a r e bound j o i n t l y a s one p a r t y , and a l s o s e v e r a l l y a s s e p a r a t e p a r t i e s a t t h e same time and a j o i n t and s e v e r a l c o n t r a c t i s a c o n t r a c t w i t h each promisor and a j o i n t contract with a l l . 17A C.J.S. C o n t r a c t s 5 355a. When a s e v e r a l o b l i g a t i o n i s e n t e r e d i n t o by two o r more i n one i n s t r u m e n t , i t i s t h e same a s though each had executed s e p a r a t e i n s t r u m e n t s , and each o b l i g a t i o n f u r n i s h e s a s e v e r a l c a u s e of a c t i o n . C o n t r a c t s 1 352a. 17A C.J.S. Thus, although p l a i n t i f f could have i n i t i a t e d - t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t b o t h Herring and USF&G i t chose t o s u e only USF6G. Cole Manufacturing Co. v. Morton, 24 Mont. 58, 60 P. 587; B u t t e Machinery Co. v. Carbonate H i l l M i l l i n g Co., 75 Mont. 167, 242 P. 956. P l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t t o sue o n l y USF&G without j o i n i n g Herring because a c o n t r a c t of s u r e t y s h i p i s a d i r e c t l i a b i l i t y of t h e s u r e t y t o t h e a s s u r e d and when t h e p r i n c i p a l (Herring) f a i l s t o perform, t h e s u r e t y becomes d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e a t once, a s i t i s unnecessary f o r t h e a s s u r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l f a i l e d t o c a r r y o u t h i s c o n t r a c t b e f o r e t h e o b l i g a t i o n of t h e s u r e t y becomes a b s o l u t e . Cole Manufacturing Co. v. Morton, s u p r a ; B u t t e Machinery Co, v. Carbonate H i l l M i l l i n g Co. supra. i n 72 C.J.S. It i s s t a t e d P r i n c i p a l and Surety §264b, p. 712: Since t h e s u r e t y i s j o i n t l y o r j o i n t l y and severally l i a b l e with the principal t o the c r e d i t o r , t h e s u r e t y may i n any c a s e be j o i n e d w i t h t h e p r i n c i p a l i n an a c t i o n by t h e c r e d i t o r , and, where t h e l i a b i l i t y i s j o i n t and s e v e r a l , t h e c r e d i t o r may sue anyone s e p a r a t e l y i f t h e c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e e n t i r e case." (Emphasis added). 11 P r i o r t o t h e adoption of ~ o n t a n a ' sp r e s e n t r u l e s of proced u r e , s e c t i o n 93-2822, R.C.M. 1947, was i n e f f e c t . It s p e c i f i c a l l y provided t h a t persons s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e upon t h e same i n s t r u m e n t , i n c l u d i n g s u r e t i e s , "may a l l o r any of them be included i n t h e same a c t i o n , a t t h e o p t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f . " Under t h a t s t a t u t e , t h i s Court h e l d i n every c a s e brought b e f o r e i t t h a t an a c t i o n may b e maintained a g a i n s t a s u r e t y without j o i n i n g t h e p r i n c i p a l . Comerford v. United S t a t e s F i d e l i t y and Guaranty Co., 59 Mont. 243, 196 P . 984; Deer Lodge County v. United S t a t e s F i d e l i t y & Guaranty Company, 42 Mont. 315, 112 P. 1060; F o s t e r v. Royal Indemnity Co., 83 Mont. 170, 271 P. 609. Section 93-2822, R.C.M. superseded by Rule 2 0 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., 1947, has been which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t pro- vides: ** It* A l l persons may be j o i n e d i n one a c t i o n a s defendants i f t h e r e i s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , any r i g h t t o r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t of o r a r i s i n g o u t of t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , occurrence o r s e r i e s of t r a n s a c t i o n s o r occurrences and i f any q u e s t i o n s o f law o r f a c t common t o a l l defendants w i l l a r i s e i n t h e a c t i o n 9~ Judgment may b e given 'v a g a i n s t one o r more defendants according t o t h e i r respective liabilities." (Emphasis added.) ** * * Thus, i t i s s t i l l permissive f o r a p l a i n t i f f t o s e p a r a t e l y s u e j o i n t and s e v e r a l o b l i g o r s . Here, USF&G i s t h e s o l e defendant and a n o n - r e s i d e n t and under s e c t i o n 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947, may be sued i n any county t h e p l a i n t i f f d e s i g n a t e s . Foley v. General Motors Corp., 159 Mont. 469, USF&G argues i n i t s b r i e f about a l a c k of due p r o c e s s t o Herring. USF&G, however, has given n o t i c e t o Herring. h a s every o p p o r t u n i t y t o appear i f he d e s i r e s . Herring The order of the district court is reversed and the matter returned to the district court of Cascade County for further proceedings. Justice 4 4 Me Concur: / jP . Chief Justice / 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.