MCGRATH v DORE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13919 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 GEORGE D. McGRATH, Petitioner and Respondent, RAYMON E. DORE, Director Montana Department of Revenue, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable James Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: R. Bruce McGinnis, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Barry J. Hjort, Helena, Montana Cause submitted on briefs. Submitted: Decided: Filed: April 5, 1978 JUL 1 2 1378 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. P e t i t i o n e r brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e District Court, S i l v e r Bow County, s e e k i n g a w r i t of mandamus and a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t Department of Revenue. Respondent moved f o r a change of venue t o L e w i s and C l a r k County. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Honorable James D. Freebourn p r e s i d i n g , d e n i e d t h e motion. Respondent a p p e a l s . The p e r t i n e n t f a c t s a r e : P e t i t i o n e r i s t h e S i l v e r Bow County A s s e s s o r . By h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus and a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t , p e t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s r e s p o n d e n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o pay him t h e f u l l amount of h i s s a l a r y , a l l e g e d t o b e $13,347 p e r y e a r , and h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o . Respondent p a i d p e t i t i o n e r a t a r a t e of o n l y $12,706 p e r y e a r . R e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r change of venue and t h e a f f i d a v i t of i t s d i r e c t o r a l l e g e t h a t a l l p a y r o l l f u n c t i o n s of t h e Department of Revenue a r e c a r r i e d o u t a t i t s h e a d q u a r t e r s i n Lewis and C l a r k County. The s i n g l e 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 denying r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion f o r change of venue. The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t s e c t i o n s 93-2906(1) and 932 9 0 2 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p r o p e r venue i n t h i s c a s e . S e c t i o n 93-2906(1) p r o v i d e s : "The c o u r t o r t h e judge must, on motion, change t h e p l a c e of t r i a l i n t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: " 1 . When t h e c o u n t y d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e comp l a i n t i s n o t t h e proper county." S e c t i o n 93-2902(2) p r o v i d e s : " A c t i o n s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g c a u s e s must b e t r i e d i n t h e c o u n t y where t h e c a u s e , o r some p a r t t h e r e o f , a r o s e , s u b j e c t t o t h e l i k e power of t h e c o u r t t o change t h e p l a c e of t r i a l : "2. A g a i n s t a p u b l i c o f f i c e r , o r p e r s o n s s p e c i a l l y appointed t o execute h i s d u t i e s f o r a n a c t done by him i n v i r t u e of h i s o f f i c e ; o r a g a i n s t a p e r s o n who, by h i s command o r i n h i s a i d , does a n y t h i n g t o u c h i n g t h e d u t i e s of such o f f i c e r . " The Department of Revenue c o n t e n d s t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n a r o s e i n Lewis and C l a r k County b e c a u s e t h e a l l e g e d wrongful a c t s by d e p a r t m e n t o f f i c i a l s o c c u r r e d i n t h a t c o u n t y . Peti- t i o n e r responds t h a t t h e s a l a r y w a s a l l e g e d l y s e t i n S i l v e r Bow County, and t h e wrong o c c u r r e d when p e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d h i s check f o r t h e wrong amount, a l s o i n S i l v e r Bow County. There i s no d i s p u t e t h a t a change o f venue p u r s u a n t t o t h e s t a t u t e s h e r e t o f o r e n o t e d i s n o t a m a t t e r of d i s c r e t i o n w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , b u t i s mandatory i f t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d " i s n o t t h e p r o p e r county." G u t h r i e v . Montana Department of H e a l t h and Environmental S c i e n c e s , 913, 34 St.Rep. (1977) , Mon t . -, 561 P. 2d 155, 159. Our d e c i s i o n i n G u t h r i e a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s t h e g e n e r a l t e s t r e l a t i n g t o p r o p e r venue: "Thus t h e answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n of p r o p e r venue under s e c t i o n 9 3 - 2 9 0 2 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, l i e s i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f two d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , t h e n a t u r e of t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n and t h e t i m e and p l a c e where it s p r i n g s i n t o existence." 561 P.2d 916. The c a u s e of a c t i o n h e r e i n , a l t h o u g h i n c o r p o r a t i n g a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f i n t h e form of d e c l a r a t o r y judgment, i s e s s e n t i a l l y one of mandamus. W e note t h e D i s t r i c t Court found a s a f a c t t h a t t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n i s f o r mandamus. I t i s c l e a r p e t i t i o n e r s e e k s t o e s t a b l i s h a d u t y on t h e p a r t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o pay t h e f u l l amount of h i s s a l a r y , and t h e n e g l e c t o r r e f u s a l of t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o do s o . It is the general rule that venue in a mandamus action is proper in the county where the public official, whose act the petitioner seeks to compel, resides. In Lunt v. Divi- sion of Workmen's Compensation, (1975), 167 Mont. 251, 537 P.2d 1080, the plaintiff applied for a writ of mandate to compel the Division to set a hearing on his claim for compensation benefits. This Court held venue was proper in Lewis and Clark County, where the Division is headquartered and from which it operates, rather than the county in which the hearing would take place. In so holding, the Court relied on State ex rel. State Dry Cleaners' Board v. District Court, (Okla. 1959), 340 P.2d 939, 942, which held: "I* * * Since the cause of action arises where the neglect or refusal on the part of the public official takes place, it might be argued that the alleged neglect in this case took place in Nowata County where the Board failed to hold the hearing. However, we are of the opinion that in an action for mandamus the cause of action arises in the county where the public official officially resides. It is at that place where he officially refuses to act or neglect to act.'" 167 Mont. 254. In discussing our holding in Lunt in the case of Guthrie, we stated: "* * *[In Lunt] the action was for mandamus. It is difficult to imagine mandamus, based as it is on neglect or refusal by a public official to perform a ministerial duty, which did not arise as the Court said in Lunt I"* * * in the county where the public official officially resides. It is at that place where he officially refuses to act or neglects to act."'" 561 P. 2d 916. Here, petitioner contends the alleged wrong occurred in Silver Bow County when petitioner began receiving paychecks for less that the claimed amount. We conclude, however, that the alleged wrongful act on the part of respondent, i.e., the neglectful or intentional failure to pay the full amount of wages allegedly due petitioner, occurred in Lewis and Clark County, hence giving rise to petitioner's cause of action in mandamus. The District Court erred in denying respondent's motion for a change of venue. We Concur: I / g i e f justice Justices The cause is reversed. /

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.