The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-02-08

demanded premises At the time Of her
death, but was tho tenant Of tho respoud-
snts; that ~ she did not die seizsd Ut any
estate In the premises, her administrator,
the appellant oannos maintain thia action.
Tho findings and Judgment OF ths cours be-
low were in favor OF tho respondents. The
appellant died his motion 10 n new trial,
which was over ulsd, and from the order OF
the court ovsrruling his motion for a new
trial. this appeal IL taken.
The facts Of the Caso ara substantially Hs
follows: Ths deceased. Kebecca Citizens,
was the mother OF tho respondents. On
Jan. 2. 1883. the deceased, who was then
seized In fee of tho premises In dispute, sx-
ecutsd u decd TO the demanded premises to
the respondents. On the same day the re-
%spondsnt. executed = lease TO the same
premises to the deceased for the term of her
natural life, and delivered the same 10 the
deceased. Tn proof 10 not positive that
the decd was actually then delivered by the
grantor TO the grantees. that ~. by Msnua
delivery. some months after the execution
of the said deed and lease. the deceased. in
company with Mrs. Flaharty, one OF the
Rtantsss, took both Of said instruments to
the GalIatin Valley bank. and delivered
them to the assistant oashisr. Tho in
scfiption was written ON tho outside of
said papers: T. deliver to Mrs. Citizens.
and in case Of her death. to Mrs. Flah-
arty." Mrs. Citizens died some months
after the delivery OF these papers to the
bank, without calling for them, I'M with.
out even attempting, or expressing any de-
sire, to regain tho possession of them.
After the death of Mrs. Citizens the papers
were delivered to Mrs. Floharty. While
these apsrs were in the bank Mrs. Citizens
girls dced." moaning Tho respondent. was
in the bank. The evidence also sho VS. that
the deceased occupied the demanded prem
Uses under said lease from its execution
until her death. After the death Of Mrs.
Citizens the respondents took ossession of
control thereof ever since. The deceased
in her lifetime, while said papers We 9 In
the bank. spoke OF both tho deed and lease
being in the bank, and of the deed
AZ belonging to tho respondents. Upon this
showing OF facts al psllant contends there
was no delivery Of said deed; that the de-
ceased never lost control over it during her
life time. and that the delivery thereof was
void. Counsel for the appellant comedies
that IL the deed was delivered he had no
case. Respondents of course claim thatths
deed was delivered. This opinion 10 not to
bs inter trsted ~ establishing any new rule
in relation to the tsstamsntary disposition
a. to the rights of creditors in CASES rest
ing upon like facts and circumstances. We
simply decide shat in this case there was q
delivery of tho deed and complete oonsum-
alton thereof before the death OF the
grantor. Judgment of tho lower court iG
affirmed. Opinion by Chief Justice Penn.
berton.
Rachel E. Creek W. John MoManus OF al.
respondents. Plaintiff brought an action
to recover damages from defendants fol
the alleged wrongful issuance Of an ~injunc-
.ion. MoMsnus brought an action for an
injunction against plaintiff and gave An
Undertaking. The err or In gfAnting q mo-
ton for y non-suit IL sufficient for the
reversal Of the case on this appeal. JudR.
mont 10 reversed. Opinion by Associate
Justice Do Witt.
frederick g. Mcdonald W. ]. Pincus Of
al, appellants. An action to en- oroe pay
ment Of a promissory note for $3.50. Judg-
msnt for plaintiff affirmed. Opinion By
Associate Justice Harwood.