The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-04-15
Judge Knowles Decides the Case of
the Northern Pacific Against
Amacker.
Those With Big Landed Posses
sions Have No More Rights
Than Others.
United State. Grand Jury Drawn and q
Lot of Business on Hand Await
ing Their Action.

QUIT court, yesterday handed down MS
decision in the case of the Northern Pacific
railroad against Maria Amacker and others.
The suit was brought by the railroad COM
pany to obtain possession of u piece of land
known as the Mclean Park addition,
claimed to be within its grant, but to which
Maria Amaoker holds a patent. 1t is al
legged hat the patent was obtained upon
false representations. The company asked
the court to decree that the occupants have
no good title to the lane and that they be
restrained from asserting any claim to it.
Tbs defendants filed a demurrer to
the complaint, claiming that the
company is not entitled to
the relief prayed for, thus
presenting the proposition whether or not
the complaint states facts sufficient to
show that the railroad has a right to appeal
to the equity jurisdiction of the court.
Though the bill of complaint makes
eleven persons defendants, there are more
than $50 claiming titles to land in Mclean
Park addition. The railroad maintained
that it would be necessary to bring a multi
plicity of suits, unless the court should al
low the persons named to defend the claims
of the other occupants. This, the court
Sd SS 10 lOV bAo ~ w VIVIAN
not be compelled to bring more h n
action at law to determine the right of pos
session of the premises against all parties
claiming any part of the land, or who are
in possession. Numerous authorities are
quoted to sustain this view. and the court
says:
'The case is analogous to that of the
Northern Pacific against G. w. Cannon and
others, Just decided. Thu only difference
appears to be that in the Cannon case one
of the defendants procured a patent to the
premises in dispute, as it is alleged, upon
the false representation that the land was
mineral and excepted from the railroad
grant. In the Amacker case the railroad
claims that the promises were never ex-
cepteu from Its grant, and the patent to
Maria Amacker was issued subsequent to
the grant and was void for that reason. In
the Cannon case the court held that the
Northern Pacihc's title was a legal and not
an equitable one, and that having a legal
title the road could not maintain all action
in equity to nave the United States
court adjudge concerning the adverse
claims to it's land, or to remove n
cloud Upon its title. without showing that
it was in possession of the land; that while
in some states there were statutory pro-
visions which allowed the bringing of such
an action where the lane was vacant and
unoccupied no such provision exists in
Montana, and that without 1t such an ac-
ton could not be maintained. 1t was not
denied that there might be equitable
tion where the plaintiff had a legal title
and was not in possession of the land in
dispute. The equitable ground claimed to
exist in that case was that the exercise OF
equitable jurisdiction might prevent a
multiplicity of suits. nr
IF the land is unoccupied l see no rea-
son why the plaintiff cannot take possession
and then bring the appropriate action to de-
termine the title to the same. The great
hardship which would be devolved upon
plaintiff if he should be compelled to take
possession of its lands before bringing such
an action as this was alluded to by counsel
for plaintiff. This hardship was based up
on the extended landed possessions of plain
tiff. 1 knew of no rule of law which would
allow plaintiff, on account of its extended
landed possessions, to invoke any rule of
practice in this matter different from a per-
son OF limited domain. Perhaps the rule in
a court of equity which denies its
right to determine an adverse title TO or re-
move a cloud upon land which is vacant
should be changed in Montana as it has in
many other states by statute law. Until
this is dom | do not see how l can disre-
gard the we'll established rules of equity
Jurisdiction upon this point. There is an
other point worthy of consideration in the
question of multiplicity of suits. The &C.
ton usually called ejectment lies on behalf
of a plaintiff against a defendant who
w%ithholds from him the possession of real
estate to which he is entitled. The bill in
this case shows upon it's face that only two
of the dependents named. and meme Of the
l5O who. it is alleged. claim some interest
in the premises described in the bill, are
withholding from plaintiff any portion of
the premises. The only actions at law
which the plaintiff has concerning these
premises then, are two, hardly enough to
be called such a multiplicity of suits as to
demand the intervention Of a court of
equity. For the reasons stated above | do
not think the bill shows any equity. When
a bill fails to state facts sufficient to present
a case within the equitable jurisdiction Of
the court, the United States courts have
held that a court of equity is without au-
thority to determine anything further in
the case than its own jurisdiction. The
demurrer in this case ia sustainedn