General Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Aut

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 30, 1980
Docket80-055
StatusPublished

This text of General Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Aut (General Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Aut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Aut, (Mo. 1980).

Opinion

No. 80-55 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, Division of General Electric Co., A Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent,

MONTANA AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a corporation; BRUCE D. JAMISON, d/b/a JAMISON CONSTRUCTION, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Joseph P. Hennessey argued and Larry Grubbs, argued, Billings, Montana Harrison, Loendorf & Poston, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Fred Dugan argued, Billings, Montana

Submitted: September 15, 1980

Filed: - SRF 3 fl f$@ Decided: SEP 9 0 19w

Clerk M r . 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 t h e Court.

T h e d e f e n d a n t M o n t a n a A u t o m o b i l e A s s o c i a t i o n (MAA) appeal s

f r o m a judgment entered i n D i s t r i c t Court f o l l o w i n g a n o n j u r y

trial. T h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e f o u n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was e n t i t l e d

t o r e c o v e r $2,956.80, p l u s c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n a l i e n

foreclosure.

D e f e n d a n t MAA c o n t r a c t e d w i t h J a m i s o n C o n s t r u c t i o n

( c o n t r a c t o r ) t o e r e c t a b u i l d i n g on MAA's r e a l p r o p e r t y i n

Billings, Montana. D u r i n g t h e f a l l o f 1977, t h e now b a n k r u p t

s u b c o n t r a c t o r Clawson p u r c h a s e d e l e c t r i c a l m a t e r i a l s on open

a c c o u n t f r o m t h e p l a i n t i f f G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c S u p p l y Company ( G E )

f o r t h e MAA j o b . C l a w s o n a l r e a d y owed G E a l a r g e sum o f money

f o r m a t e r i a l s p u r c h a s e d d u r i n g t h e summer o f 1 9 7 7 f o r o t h e r j o b s ,

b u t t h e a m o u n t was n o t y e t s u c h as t o a l a r m GE. B u t by December

1 9 7 7 , G E b e c a m e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t C l a w s o n ' s now o v e r d u e a c c o u n t s .

G E c o n t a c t e d C l a w s o n b y p h o n e t o make a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h h i m t o

p a y a t l e a s t $37,749.69 on h i s a c c o u n t o f o v e r $100,000, o r GE

threatened t o stop extending credit. On D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 1977, at

t h e t i m e t h a t C l a w s o n was p a i d f o r t h e MAA j o b b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r ,

C l a w s o n made t h e p a y m e n t o f $ 3 7 , 7 4 9 . 6 9 o n h i s GE a c c o u n t . GE

a p p l i e d t h i s c h e c k t o t h e p a s t due a c c o u n t s o f $ 3 7 , 7 4 9 . 6 9 , and

d i d not apply i t t o t h e accounts r e f l e c t i n g m a t e r i a l s purchased

f o r t h e MAA j o b - - n o n e o f w h i c h w e r e p a s t due a t t h a t t i m e .

A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f f u n d s was c o n t r a r y t o

Clawson's instructions.

I n F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 8 , GE f i l e d a m a t e r i a l m a n ' s l i e n a g a i n s t

MAA f o r f a i l u r e t o p a y f o r t h e e l e c t r i c a l supplies. S u i t was

l a t e r brought t o enforce the l i e n , and j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d i n

f a v o r o f GE. We a f f i r m .

The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r p u r p o s e s o f appeal

a l l r e l a t e t o one c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n : Did the D i s t r i c t Court e r r

i n f i n d i n g t h a t a v a l i d l i e n e x i s t e d a g a i n s t MAA?

Both p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n agree t h a t i f the m a t e r i a l s u s e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e MAA b u i l d i n g w e r e s u p p l i e d b y GE

b u t were n o t p a i d f o r t h a t GE has a v a l i d b a s i s f o r a l i e n . But,

a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t G E was n o t i f i e d t h a t C l a w s o n ' s p a y m e n t t o

G E was t o be a p p l i e d t o t h e M A A a c c o u n t ; t h e r e f o r e t h e MAA d e b t

s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g b e e n p a i d . 6 0 Am J u r 2 d P a y m e n t

$5 81, 82; M o n i d a h T r u s t v. Hruze ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 444, 449,

2 0 5 P. 232, 233-234.

A c r e d i t o r i s bound by t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o h i m by

t h e d e b t o r as t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a p a y m e n t . Section

28-1-1106, MCA, sets out the c r e d i t o r ' s duties:

" A p p l i c a t i o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e when t h e r e a r e several obl i g z i o n s . Whenever a d e b t o r u n d e r s e v e r a l o b l i q a t i o n s t o a n o t h e r d o e s an a c t b v way o f p e r f o r m a n c e , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , w h i c h i s e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t w o o r more o f such o b l i g a t i o n s , s u c h p e r f o r m a n c e m u s t be a p p l i e d a s follows:

"(1) I f , a t t h e t i m e o f performance, t h e i n t e n - t i o n o r d e s i r e o f t h e d e b t o r t h a t such p e r f o r - m a n c e s h o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h e e x t i n c t i o n o f a n y p a r t i c u l a r obligation i s manifested t o the c r e d i t o r , i t m u s t be so a p p l i e d .

"(2) I f no s u c h i n t e n t i o n o r d e s i r e i s t h e n manifested, the c r e d i t o r , w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e a f t e r s u c h p e r f o r m a n c e , may a p p l y i t t o w a r d t h e e x t i n c t i o n o f any o b l i g a t i o n p e r f o r m a n c e o f w h i c h was d u e t o h i m f r o m t h e d e b t o r a t t h e t i m e o f such p e r f o r m a n c e . . ." I n o r d e r t o f i n d t h a t t h e c r e d i t o r (GE) e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g

C l a w s o n ' s p a y m e n t t o t h e p a s t due a c c o u n t s , then, i t was n e c e s s a r y

f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o f i n d t h a t Clawson " m a n i f e s t e d " his

"intention or d e s i r e " t o GE t h a t t h e $37,749.69 p a y m e n t be

a p p l i e d t o t h e MAA account. C l a w s o n c o n t e n d s t h a t GE knew o r

s h o u l d h a v e k n o w n how t h e c h e c k was t o be a p p l i e d .

B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , the d i s t r i c t

j u d g e f o u n d t h a t m a t e r i a l s v a l u e d a t $2,956.80 were supplied t o

MAA, a n d t h a t t h e n o t i c e t o t h e c r e d i t o r as t o p a y m e n t was n o t

s u f f i c i e n t t o deem t h e MAA a c c o u n t p a i d . T h e s e f i n d i n g s m u s t be

p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y

erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. A review of the evidence s h o w s some c o n f l i c t , b u t t h i s Court w i l l not

" ' s u b s t i t u t e i t s weighing o f the evidence f o r t h a t o f the t r i a l court. When t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence, the f i n d i n g s o f the t r i a l c o u r t a r e p r e s u m e d t o be c o r r e c t i f s u p - p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . "' K o s m e r l v. Barbour ( 1 9 7 9 ) ~ Mont. , 5 8 9 P.2d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 1 9 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 2 1 0 , .31 2

T h e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l o n t h e q u e s t i o n o f n o t i c e came p r i -

m a r i l y f r o m GE's p r i n c i p a l w i t n e s s M r . Resch, and f r o m M r .

Clawson. R e s c h , a c r e d i t and c o l l e c t i o n s p e c i a l i s t f o r G E i n

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States Ex Rel. Carroll v. Beck
151 F.2d 964 (Sixth Circuit, 1945)
National Bank v. Bingham
5 P.2d 554 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Ada Brick Co. v. Robinson
1932 OK 177 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Brown v. Gaston & Simpson Gold & Silver Mining Co.
1 Mont. 57 (Montana Supreme Court, 1868)
Monidah Trust v. Hruze
205 P. 232 (Montana Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
General Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Aut, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-elec-supply-co-v-mt-aut-mont-1980.