The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-07-29
The Definition Of a Well as Laid
Down by the Supreme
Court.
A Decision Of Considerable Inter-
est to Montana Ranchmen
and Others.
Cases Removed From the County to the
Federal Court-Work of tho Jury
Com isBiOners. d

QCE 10 oULulu WSVCIs 0uSh 40 wv ACAAAh-
ton as laid down in an opinion just deliv-
cred by the supreme court, and it carries
with it the view that such an opening is a
we'll, whether it succeeds in striking water
or not. The opinion was delivered in the
case of j. A. Littrell and others, plaintiffs
and respondents, against Frank b. Wilcox,
defendant and appellant, and was first
tried in the district court of Cascade county.
Wilcox lost there and appealed to the su-
prems court. The complaint of Littrell
and others was for work done for Wilcox in
drilling a we'll to the depth of 230 feet. 1t
was alleged hat the services were worth
S637. 80, of which only 500 was paid. Judg-
ment was asked for $500. the sum of $3.50
having been RENTED. Wilcox filed an
answer, in which he made the defense
that whatever labor was performed
was upon a special contract, whereby
Littrell and others agreed to sink
q we'll containing water other than surface
water. and that the contract should be COM
pleted within a reasonable time. The an
swsr further sets up that prior to the com
pletion of this special contract, and with
out reaching water, the plaintiffs abandoned
the contract without Wiloox's leave or any
lawful excuse therefor; that they did not
offer to complete the contract, and that
under it's terms they were to receive no pay
until completed.
The supreme court. in their opinion,
after disposinR of some questions of plead
ing, say: I'VE come now, after clearing
the way, to the sist of the action. The
plaintiffs seek to recover for services upon
n ouantum meruit, They proved the ser
vices and the value, and the jury found
with them. The defendant alleges a
special contract to sink a well
containing water other than sur
face water and that plaintiffs
left the contract without reaching water.
There il a conflict of evidence as to why
plaintiffs quit the work. Plaintiff Llttrell
t~estities that, after he had reached 2SO feet,
defendant Wilcox told him not to prosecute
the work further. The jury settled thit
conflict by their verdict n the district
court refused to disturb their finding.
Nov as to the special contract to reach
water. 1t cannot be seriously commenced
that it appears from the evidence that tn
plaintiffs ever agreed in terms to sink te
water, But defendant POUNDS his argument
upon his construction of the word well;
that plaintiffs agreed to drill q WE'LL that I
we'll is a hole in the ground containing
water other han surface water; that whe1
plaintiffs agreed to drill a we'll they con,
tracted to furnish an article meeting tina
definition, and that if they did not produce
a hole in the ground containing water othe
than surface water they did not drill
well: and cannot recover. 49,.
"Let it be observed here that nothing
was said about price when the work va
commenced and the contract made. III
defendant, himself, selected the site TO
the proposed we'll. Nothing was said abou
plaintiffs undertaking to reach water. AL
that can be CLEANED from the conversation
of the parties is that plaintiffs were to dl
a we'll. From this contract and the circum
stances, to construe an undertaking on tn
pa,t of the plaintiffs to reach water or re
ceive no pay, seems to us to do great vic
lence to language and to the ordinary trans
= actions of sane men.
cit appears that the services of plaintiff
were worth what they charged. Whe
plaintiffs went to dig a we'll, when the
, took a site selected by defendant, when n
!, guaranty of reaching water WAS made. whe
: no price was liked for performing the ser
vices or reaching water. can a court for
moment regard it as within the conten
plation of the parties, as shown from thel
words or their acts, that they used tn
word 'well' as meaning a hole in til
:, ground containing wafer other than surfac
. water? We think not. Bouvier's law die
!. tionary defines a well as "a hole dug in tn
ground in order to obtain water This il
to our mind the only practical view. Il
l object of IL we'll is to obtain water. III
we'll may be unsuccessful. The object of
mining shaft ia to develop a mine that wi
pay, an object not always obtained. Undo
the circumstance of the case we cannt
: construe the word we'll as defendant il
: sists. And he must depend wholly upo
f the construction of that word, for he uttel
, ly failed to prove any special contract
: terms and the jury SO found" Tho jud!
. ment and the order of the Cascade count
court denying the motion for a new trial
: affirmed. The opinion was prepared b
Justice Dewitt and CONQUERED in by his a
s~ociates.