MELROE v DOYLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 8 9 - 2 8 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA I a w 0 1989 CD z 2" %IJ C") > Z C3 G c,-)z --I 4 alm c) -u C a CLIFFORD MELROE, x plaintiff and Respondent, -VS- m t;r I - "P ; z7 C P TERESA M. DOYLE, CONNIE J. GRIFFIN, STEVEN E. SCHEITLIN, SUSAN M. SCHEITLIN, DANIEL J. SCHEITLIN, EDWARD E. SCHEITLIN, JR., MICHAEL J. SCHEITLIN, and VAEDA G. SCHEITLIN, 3 r 7 W 6 4 Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: ~istrictCourt of the Second ~udicial~istrict, In and for the County of Silver BOW, The Honorable Mark ~ullivan,Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: John H. ~ardine; ~ardine& Grauman, Whitehall, Montana For Respondent : ~illiam M. Kebe, Jr. & Carol L. McGary; Johnson, Skakles & Kebe, Butte, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Aug. 17, 1 9 8 9 ~ecided: November 7, 1989 Filed: Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendants appeal from an order of the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Silver Bow County, denying their motion for change of venue. We affirm. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying defendants1 motion to move the place of trial from the county in which four of the eight defendants resided to the county in which the contract relied upon in the complaint was to be performed. Plaintiff, Clifford Melroe, brought this action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in Silver Bow County, the residence of four of the eight defendants. The defendants moved for change of venue, claiming that Madison County was the proper place for trial as it was the county in which the contract was to be performed. The District Court denied the motion. The defendants appealed. The statute governing change of venue for contract actions provides in pertinent part: (1) The proper place of trial for actions upon contracts is either: (a) the county in which the defendants, or any of or them, reside at the commencement of the action; (b) the county in which the contract was to be added.) performed. (~mphasis Section 25-2-121, MCA. The statute reiterates the longstanding rule that, in contract actions, the plaintiff may elect to bring suit in either the county of the defendant1 residence or the county s of contract performance. Either county is the proper place for trial.. When a suit may properly be commenced in more than one county and the plaintiff files in one of the p e r m i s s i b l e c o u n t i e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t may n o t change t h e venue o f t h e a c t i o n t o a d i f f e r e n t county, even i f t h e t h e county p r e f e r r e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a l s o a p r o p e r p l a c e f o r t r i a l . S e c t i o n 25-2-115, 228 Mont. MCA. See a l s o P e t e r s e n v . Tucker 393, 396, 742 P.2d 483, 484-85. In t h e present case, filed suit not err the plaintiff e l e c t e d t o commence t h e a c t i o n i n S i l v e r Bow Such e l e c t i o n was p r o p e r . in c o u l d have p r o p e r l y i n e i t h e r S i l v e r Bow County o r p ad is on County. The p l a i n t i f f County. (1987), denying venue. Affirmed. the defendants' The ~ i s t r i c tC o u r t d i d motion for change of
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.
