Park County Implement Co. v. Craig, 3262

• Decision Date: 29 December 1964
• Docket Number: No. 3262,3262
• Parties: 2 UCC Rep.Serv. 379 PARK COUNTY IMPLEMENT CO., a Wyoming Corporation, dba Intermountain Equipment Co., Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Dave CRAIG and Roger Holler, dba Cody Treater Service, Appellees (Defendants below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 800

397 P.2d 800

2 UCC Rep.Serv. 379

PARK COUNTY IMPLEMENT CO., a Wyoming Corporation, dba Intermountain Equipment Co., Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Dave CRAIG and Roger Holler, dba Cody Treater Service, Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 3262.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Dec. 29, 1964.

John T. Dixon, Powell, for appellant.

Jerry W. Housel and Margie M. Williams, Cody, for appellees.

Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY, and McINTYRE, JJ.

Mr. Chief Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff sued defendants for the amount due on a purchase of a truck chassis and cab. Defendants entered a general denial, moved for a summary judgment, and thereafter plaintiff filed a similar motion. Certain affidavits and interrogatories were submitted, and the court after considering the matter entered a summary judgment for defendants, from which judgment this appeal is taken.

On February 16, 1962, defendants ordered a 1962 International A-162 chassis and cab from plaintiff, which advised that one was not on hand but should be in the area. Three days later defendants were informed that such a vehicle was at the International Harvester Company in Billings, Montana whereupon defendant Holler drove to Billings and there received the vehicle from that company, asking the International employee from whom the vehicle was received for a statement of origin, title certificate, or some evidence of title. The employee responded that the company did not have the same. The agreed selling price was approximately $3,150 delivered in Cody, Wyoming, or approximately $3,115 if defendants took delivery of the truck at Billings. According to the interrogatories and affidavit, defendants brought the vehicle to Cody, put it in their shop, and were installing a hoist and dump bed when a fire occurred March 1, destroying the chassis and cab. Defendants said they had made request of plaintiff's manager for statement of origin or other title papers to no avail, but plaintiff's manager said a statement of origin was tendered to defendants on March 2 and was refused.

The record discloses no specific bases upon which the defendants sought or were granted summary judgment, and although these are not mandatory under Rule 56, W.R.C.P., their absence is a handicap to a reviewing court. Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U.S. 249, 68 S.Ct. 1031, 92 L.Ed. 1347; Steiner v. Wertheimer, 6 Cir., 250 F.2d 574; 3 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, p. 201 (1958). And their presence would also seem to be desirable in the trial court.

Assuming that the position of the litigants has remained consistent, we review defendants' arguments here. In essence they say that there was no completed sale because either (1) the Montana law was applicable and under holdings in that jurisdiction there was no completed sale until there had been compliance with various sections of the motor vehicle code, notably, the issuance of a certificate of ownership. Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company, 142 Mont. 155, 382 P.2d 174, or (2) even if Wyoming law applied various of the motor vehicle statutes made issuance of a certificate of title requisite to any transfer. They say further that the Uniform Commercial Code--Sales (Article 2, Chapter 22, Title 34, W.S.1957 (1963 Cumulative Supp.)), does not apply since a motor vehicle cannot be classified as 'goods.' Accordingly, they assert that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We examine such theses. Before deciding the applicability of Montana law, we must determine what is the law of Wyoming, that State being the residence of the parties and the scene of every activity concerning the motor vehicle in question except its having been received in Billings, Montana, by Holler, one of the defendants. At the inception of the synthesis, we note that the Uniform Commercial Code--Sales had been adopted in Wyoming January 1, 1962, and was in effect at the time of the transaction, and further that this code has been held as applicable to motor vehicles. Semple v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, E.D.Pa., 215 F.Supp. 645.

This leads us to the section of the Uniform Commercial Code dealing with the territorial application of the Act, § 34-1-105, W.S.1957 (1963 Cumulative Supp.), which provides:

'(1) Except as provided hereafter in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties. Failing such agreement this act [§§ 34-1-101 to 34-10-105] applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state.'

The wording of § 34-1-105 was not accidental but was the result of years of study of persons especially interested in this field. Even prior to the earliest concept of a uniform sales act the conflict-of-laws problems concerning jurisdiction were many and these continued into the first version of the commercial code, which provided in § 1-105(2) that various articles of the code should apply whenever any contract or transaction within the terms of any of the mentioned articles either (a) was made, offered or accepted or the transaction occurred within the code state; or (b) was to be performed or completed wholly or in...