First Wyoming Bank, Casper v. Mudge

748 P.2d 713 (1988)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

First Wyoming Bank, Casper v. Mudge

Wyoming Supreme Court
748 P.2d 713 (1988)

Facts

In July 1981, Robert M. Mudge, Sybil A. Mudge, Edward W. Mudge, and Edna F. Mudge (defendants) agreed to sell their family corporate welding business named M & M Welding, Inc. (M&M Welding) to Redding. The purchase agreement provided for the Mudges to transfer their corporate stock, inventory, equipment, and M&M Welding’s business-site real property to Redding. The purchase agreement also included a negative-pledge clause prohibiting Redding from mortgaging M&M Welding’s assets without the Mudges’ consent until the total purchase price had been paid. The stock was placed in escrow until Redding paid the total purchase price. Redding could operate the business while making the payments. The deal closed in September 1981 and Redding began operating the business. Shortly after, Redding applied to First Wyoming Bank, Casper (the Bank) (plaintiff) for a $100,000 loan to cover unrelated investment obligations. At some point, the Bank received an unsigned copy of the purchase agreement between the Mudges and Redding. Notwithstanding, the Bank took a priority security interest in M&M Welding’s inventory and equipment to secure the loan to Redding. Neither Redding nor the Bank obtained the Mudges’ consent. Redding subsequently failed to pay the Mudges under the purchase agreement. Accordingly, the Mudges canceled the purchase agreement. The Mudges learned of Redding’s security agreement with the Bank when the Bank brought a foreclosure action regarding the inventory and equipment, which halted M&M Welding’s business operations. This forced the Mudges to individually put up a letter of credit to access the inventory and equipment, which they needed to continue business operations. The Bank drew down the letter of credit. The Mudges filed a third-party complaint against the Bank in the Bank’s foreclosure action, alleging intentional interference with their purchase agreement with Redding. A jury ruled in the Mudges’ favor. The Bank appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Urbigkit, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership