Byrne v. Plante
| Decision Date | 08 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 11517,11517 |
| Parties | James B. BYRNE and S. M. Byrne, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leonard M. PLANTE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Baxter Larson, Wolf Point (argued) for appellant.
Loren J. O'Toole, Plentywood (argued) Kline & Axtell, John M. Kline, Glasgow (argued) for respondent.
This is an appeal by defendant from an order of the district court of Roosevelt County dismissing both plaintiffs' claims and defendant's counterclaims in an action on a farm lease.
Basically this case involves the lease of approximately 3600 acres of farm land situated in Roosevelt County, owned by the plaintiffs, James B. Byrne and S. M. Byrne, and leased to the defendant, Leonard M. Plante. The parties, hereafter referred to as the lessors and lessee respectively, entered into a written lease for a term of 5 years in May 1963, which lease existed for approximately 3 years prior to the commencement of this suit.
Among other things, the lessee agreed to 'carry on and cultivate the said farm during the period of this lease and farm and cultivate the said lands to the best advantage and according to his best skill and judgment * * * secure the crops grown thereon in a farmerlike style and in the best manner during the period of this agreement'. The lessee was to have 'the use of all buildings necessary for the care of the machinery and for the storage of the grain raised on the land * * * supply all labor for the farm * * * (and) keep the said machinery in good running order'. In addition to the use of pasture land, the lessee was to be allowed to 'put up enough hay for the care of his stock that he is raising for his own use.'
Lessors were to supply 'All machinery necessary to care for the summer fallow, put in and take off the crop and to properly operate the said farm'; provide living quarters for the lessee and his family and 'all fuel for the dwelling house * * * and all electricity used on the farm is to be paid for by the Lessors.'
In addition to other duties and responsibilities of the parties, the lease explicitly details the division of expenses, costs, and profits, ending with a termination date and an express option in the lessee to renew the lease for a like period.
This action was commenced by the lessors in January, 1966, alleging that the lessee had breached various provisions of the lease; sought cancellation of the lease, restoration of the property, and damages. The lessee answered denying the allegations of the complaint, and in addition counterclaimed for the peaceful and undisturbed possession of the land under the terms of the lease, or in the alternative, for damages predicated on 11 separate alleged breaches of the lease by the lessors.
The case came on for trial on April 29, 1968. At 9:15 a.m. on that day the lessors, in chambers, orally moved to dismiss their complaint and the lessee's counterclaims on the ground there was no issue of fact to be decided and that as a matter of law neither party could recover. The basis of lessors' motion was their contention that the lessee's counterclaims were based on constructive eviction which was waived by the lessee's failure to leave the farm within a reasonable time thereafter.
The lessee resisted dismissal of his counterclaims on the ground that constructive eviction is but one of several concepts under which lessee was entitled to recover and in any event, the issue of reasonableness of the time interval between the alleged constructive eviction and lessee's removal from the premises was a disputed issue of fact.
Lessors' motion was taken under consideration by the district court and at 9:40 a. m. on the same day, in open court, the motion was granted in its entirety. The court in addressing the assembled jury stated:
'(Y)ou must appreciate that I have not had an opportunity to study the matters involved in this case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Ins. Co. v. Pinski Bros., Inc.
...of any issue of material fact is on the party seeking summary judgment. Roope v. The Anaconda Company, Mont., 494 P.2d 922; Byrne v. Plante, 154 Mont. 6, 459 P.2d 266. Where the record before the court discloses no genuine issue as to any material fact, the burden is upon the party opposing......
-
Gilleard v. Draine
...material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Roope v. The Anaconda Company, Mont., 494 P.2d 922; Byrne v. Plante, 154 Mont. 6, 459 P.2d 266 and cases cited In this case the negligence of defendant is conceded insofar as summary judgment is concerned. This entire con......
-
DeWinter v. Capp Homes, Inc., 12254
...170, 174: 'The burden of establishing the absence of any issue of material fact is on the party seeking summary judgment. Byrne v. Plainte, 154 Mont. 6, 459 P.2d 266, and citations therein. But where, as here, the record discloses no genuine issue as to any material fact, the burden is upon......
-
State ex rel. Burlington Northern, Inc. v. District Court of First Judicial Dist. In and For Lewis and Clark County, 12251
...stated: 'The burden of establishing the absence of any issue of material fact is on the party seeking summary judgment. Byrne v. Plante, 154 Mont. 6, 459 P.2d 266, and citations therein. But where, as here, the record discloses no genuine issue as to any material fact, the burden is upon th......