Ambariantz v. Cunningham

Peter Ambariantz filed a complaint against numerous defendants, seeking to quiet title to certain mining claims, restoration
of the possession of property, and an accounting. Subsequently, and prior to any disposition of the case, he moved to have
some other persons joined as defendants, among them Mickey Cunningham, who thereafter filed an answer, together with an affirmative
defense and counterclaim in which he denied plaintiff's right in Cunningham's property and asked that the title to an adjoining
claim, Green Diamond #16, be quieted in him as against plaintiff and the other defendants. Cunningham then filed a motion
for summary judgment with supporting affidavit, which motion was traversed by plaintiff. The court entered summary judgment
holding that Cunningham had no right, title, or interest in and to the claims which were the subject of plaintiff's action
but decreed that the plaintiff and other defendants had no right, title, or interest in and to the Green Diamond #16. From
this judgment plaintiff has appealed, questioning the propriety of the summary judgment, particularly as to the sufficiency
of Cunningham's affidavit. The record discloses no disposition of the case by the trial court except as to Cunningham. We have repeatedly held that
under the provisions of Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P., there can be no appeal from a judgment against one of multiple parties or from
an adjudication of one of multiple claims without an express determination by the trial court as to the lack of just reason
for delay. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.