Novco v. Grainger ( 1982 )

No. 82-19
I N THE SUPREME COURT 0 3 THE STATE O F MONTANA
1982
NOVCO, a Corp.,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
HAROLD L. GRAINGER and HOWARD G. GRAINGEK,
D e f e n d a n t s and Respondents,
and
HAROLD L. GiiAINGER AND HOWARD G. GRAINGER,
Thir.d-Party E l a i n f i f f s and Bespondei3ks,
ED NOViS, i n d i v i d u a l l y ,
Third-Party Defendant and Respondent,
and
SUNSET CARBURETOR AND ELECTRIC, I N C . , a Montana C o r p . ,
Third-Party Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
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 ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f Cascade, The HonorabLe
John M. McCarvel, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
E. Eugene A t h e r t o n , K a l i s p e l i , Montana
Fos Respondents:
P a t r i c k M. S p r i n g e r , K a l s i p e l l , Montana
J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t & Weaver; Alexander
B l e w e t t , 11, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : May 2 7 , 1982
Decided: & gg m1
Filed: JuL 2 9 1982
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
the Court.
P l a i n t i f f Novco b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s
H a r o l d G r a i n g e r and Howard G r a i n g e r i n two c o u n t s : Count I
was a n a c t i o n on an open a c c o u n t f o r $37,557.58 f o r auto-
m o t i v e p a r t s a l l e g e d l y d e l i v e r e d by Novco t o S u n s e t C a r b u r e -
tor and Electric, Inc.; Count I1 was an action against
H a r o l d G r a i n g e r i n d i v i d u a l l y t o c o l l e c t on a bad c h e c k f o r
$30,000 drawn on t h e a c c o u n t of S u n s e t A u t o m o t i v e , I n c . , and
signed by Douglas Wolf and Harold Grainger, upon which
G r a i n g e r i s a l l e g e d t o be p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e b e c a u s e h e knew
or s h o u l d h a v e known t h e r e were i n s u f f i c i e n t funds i n t h e
a c c o u n t t o t h e c r e d i t o f S u n s e t A u t o m o t i v e when h e d r e w and
d e l i v e r e d t h e check,
Defendants Grainger f a i l e d t o appear and a n s w e r and
their d e f a u l t was entered, T h i s d e f a u l t was s u b s e q u e n t l y
s e t a s i d e and t h e G r a i n g e r s f i l e d a n a n s w e r , a c o u n t e r c l a i m
and a t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t .
The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t was t h a t
S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , a c o r p o r a t i o n , and n o t
t h e G r a i n g e r s p e r s o n a l l y , was t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and
l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f Novco.
T h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c ,
Inc., moved f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
denied. This appeal followed.
The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l is t h e r i g h t o f third party
d e f e n d a n t S u n s e t C a r b u r e t o r and E l e c t r i c , I n c . , t o a change
of v e n u e from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f Cascade County t o the
F l a t h e a d County D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
Plaintiff Novco and third party defendant Sunset
Carburetor and Electric, Inc., agree that the original
defendants, Harold Grainger and Howard Grainger, waived
their right to challenge venue of the action by their
f a i l u r e t o s o move. Third p a r t y defendant Sunset Carbure-
t o r and E l e c t r i c , Inc., c o n t e n d s t h a t i t h a s an i n d e p e n d e n t
right, a s a t h i r d party defendant, t o a change of venue of
t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n b e c a u s e u n d e r R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., it
is entitled to assert against the plaintiff any defenses
t h a t d e f e n d a n t s G r a i n g e r might have a s s e r t e d .
W n o t e t h a t Montana s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o v e n u e con-
e
tain no specific provision regarding the rights of third
p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s t o o b j e c t t o v e n u e . R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.,
d o e s p r o v i d e t h a t a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t may a s s e r t a g a i n s t
the plaintiff d e f e n s e s which t h e t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n t i f f has
to the p l a i n t i f f ' s claim, but t h i s provision does not apply
t o m o t i o n s f o r a change of venue.
T h e r e a r e two b a s i c r e a s o n s why t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t
S u n s e t is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a change of venue. First, Sunset
C a r b u r e t o r is n o t a p r o p e r p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . The Montana
R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e do n o t p e r m i t a t h i r d p a r t y p l a i n -
tiff to implead a s a t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t a p a r t y who i s
n o t a p a r t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g and who i s o r may be
liable to the original plaintiff. R u l e 1 4 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.,
o n l y p e r m i t s i m p l e a d e r o f a p a r t y who " i s o r may be l i a b l e "
to the third party p l a i n t i f f . S e c o n d l y , we h o l d i n a c c o r d
w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e of o b j e c t i n g t o
venue i n t h e main a c t i o n is a p e r s o n a l p r i v i l e g e b e l o n g i n g
t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e main a c t i o n a l o n e and n o t t o a t h i r d
party defendant. Brandt v, Olson (N.D. Iowa, E.D. 1959),
179 F. Supp. 363, It is g e n e r a l l y held t h a t a t h i r d party
proceeding growing out of the same subject matter as the
main action and involving many of the same facts is
ancillary to the principal a c t i o n and i t s v e n u e r e s t s upon
t h a t of the principal action. Pelinski v. Goodyear T i r e &
Rubber Co. (N.D. Ill. 1980), 499 F. Supp. 1092; Seafood
Imports, Inc. v. A. J. Cunningham Pkg. Corp. (S.D. N.Y.
1975), 405 F. Supp. 5; Season-All Industries, Inc. v.
M e r c h a n t S h i p p e r s (W.D. Pa. 1 9 7 4 ) , 385 F. Supp. 517; Thompson
v. United A r t i s t s T h e a t r e C i r c u i t , I n c , (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 6 7 ) , 43
F.R.D. 339; Bonath v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc, (W.D. Pa,
1963), 33 F.R.D. 260; Globig v. Greene & Gust Co. (E.D.
Wisc. 1 9 6 0 ) , 1 8 4 F. Supp. 530; Morrell v. united A i r Lines
T r a n s p o r t Corp. (S.D. N.Y. 1 9 3 9 ) , 29 F. Supp. 757. See a l s o ,
F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , Wright & Miller, section
1445; 3 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , s e c t i o n 14.28 [ 2 ] ; s e c t i o n
9 , Annot., 1 0 0 ALR2d 6 9 3 , 7 0 8 , a n d c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .
A£ £ i rmed,
. - -
Chief J u s t i c e
W concur:
e