The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-12-12
THE SUPREME COURT.

" Decisions Handed Down by the
Judges Yesterday.
Tho supreme court yesterday handed
down a decision in the case OF Samuel Blu
nell. plaintiff and respondent. versus Thos.
4. Cook, defendant and appellant; appeal
from Missoula county. Brunell sued for
possession OF three horses and a wagon. and
for damages for wrongful detention Of the
same from May 81 to Oct. II, 1892, Mt tho
rate Of IS a day. He got judgment for pos
session OF tho property and $2G5 TO. it's
wrongful detention. Justice Hsrwood,
who wrote the opinion OF the supreme
court. says the damage assessed for dsten-
ton Is considerably more than the whole
nature of the properly. which docs not ap-
pear TO have deteriorated during tho period
of unlawful detention. The whole nature
OF the property was given as $21O.
The Judge says: III the property had
boon entirely converted. for instance shipped
out OF the Jurisdiction. cold and the pro-
Deeds taken by defendant 50 that return could
not be enforced; or even IL it had been abso.
lutely destroyed in his possession. defend
ants case would have been better, for in
that event the measure OF damage would
be the value, S21O, and interest thereon ut
tho lawful rate OF 10 per cent for a little
more than four months for the conversion.
In the absence OF extraordinary conditions
II would seem to be contrary to practical
results that the not value for uss OF the
earnings of this character OF property for
such a period Of time shouid motethap ex-
seed the value OF the animals, wagons and
harness used; and no extraordinary cir
cunstances appear in the adjudication to
enhance the damages above ordinary re-
Suits"
That part OF the Judgment which pro.
vidss for recovery OF damage ia reversed
aud b NaAn e. -. -
question OF damages, unlosS the parties By
az cement fx the amount of damages. In
other respects tbs judgment is affirmed.
Costs of the appeal are apportioned equally
between the parties.
Another opinion was in tho case of L. d.
Ferguson. plaintiff and appellant, versus
Jacob +. Speith ct al, defendants and re-.
%spondents; appeal from Gallatin county.
6peith and Charles Krug, as partners, pu =
chased certain property, and Speith and bis
family have occupied it ever since. X u2
occupied one room In the dwelling. He
died and the pa ,tnership assets wore at
tsched. The property which stood in the
name OF the nrnl was attached and sold in
May, 1880. under execution. Ferguson bs-
oamo the purchaser. Spalth at the time OF
sale and since has commended that tho prop.
erty was subject to his homestead claim,
Ferguson brought M action for eiectment.
The land dld not exceed in value or extent
sNS AS~oA - EOIlsH66GC. ne
case was tried in the court below without a
jury. and the findings and judgment We @
in favor of speith. Chief Justice Pembar-
ton, III delivering the opinion of the su-
prems court. says tho question to be detsr r
mined is whether a partner can claim and
hold homestead exemption out of . part
ne'ship estate. He quotes the law e1smnt-
ing from forced aals or execution a home
stead OF 100 acres and tho buildings on it.
not III q city or or q quantity of laad
not exceeding a quarter OF an acrs in town.
with the buildings on il. provided the
homestead does not excesd In value s., 900:
n observes that the statute does not excoDt
partners from its benefit. In this case a
settlement or severance was had by the
partners after the levy on the property, and
il was claimed that it was then too late Tor
any Of their acts to afiecs the rights OF the
creditora, or to authorlzs the exemption,
even IL the right existed before the judc-
ment. until the partnership debts had bsen
paid.
THAT the several members OF a oopart-
asEship come within the language of the