The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-04-03
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
The Four Decisions Which were
Handed Down by the Judges
Yesterday
They Were Mostly of Interest
Only 70 the Parties
Involved.
One Of Them Settled an Important eae''
tien Regarding the sale Of Property
for UnpAld Taxes.

The supreme court handed dova four
opinions yesterday. They we're ~ follows
James 5. Casey, rlaintih and respondent
versus John Wright, defendant and arpel-
liant; appeal from Caster county. This m
an action % cancel and set aside a tax eeei
which plaintiff alleges TO be a cloud on has
titls 90 certain real estate in Miles CITY.
Plaintiff claimed that the assessment OF
the p opcrty in suit and the sale thereon Tor
deinquent taxes for lsSS Was invalid be-
cause the same was assessed and sold IN
bulk for the gross amount Of taxes due Tor
that YEAR on the lots Ia controversy, anu
other lots in different blocks; but the COM
laint did not allege that the taxes we're
unjust or unequsl, nor did 1t contain any
offer TO tay the smount for
which said property was legally sharssab!e
for that year. The defendant demu red
70 the complaints for these reasons.
The plaintiff contended that this being an
equity case the plaintiff should do equity or
ODER 20 do equity before he could MAINTAIN
this suit. The court ovefruled the de-
murrer The supreme court holds this was
error. The Supreme court FL ther holds
that the sale Of the p oEerty in controversy
with other property all together for the
gross sum Of taxes assessed upon the whole
was void. aud that the tax deed was void.
The case Is reversed and reminded with In
strnctions 10 sustain the demurrer 90 the
complaint and for further proceedings In
accordance with the views expressed in the
opinion OF tbs court. Opinion by ChleI
Justice pemb8rton.
Edward Carron, respondent, versus Ihos.
G ark ct al, appellants; appeal from Mis-
soula county. Action was brought TO enloin
defendants from opening road through
a certain field In POSSESSION OF platinum as
lessee and 80 recover damages for removal
Of part Of the fence. The grounds alleged
we're irregularities in the proceedings. De
PENDANTS moved for a non-suit on the
ground that there was no evidence 20 estab-
lish certain material allegations OF tue com
plant The motion was overrulsd which
Is assigned a. error One of the principal
allegations was that no affidsvit was Med
OF the posting of notices. as required by
Law. On this point the eoart says: Neg
ligsnce on the part OF the proper officials to
have fled and recorded. as the Law requires.
the proper rsoo ds in such a matter, 10 cen
surable and punishable. And while 10 mag
be that she manner Of keeping records in the
Office of the county clerk merits severe
csnsurs. still II would not be oonformAble
to reason OF we'll established D inciples OF
law 90 declare void the proceedings for
opening a road because required afhlaVit
for instance. showing the posting OF GER
tain notices. was not among the files or
records Of the proper Office. II in fact the
proper noticss were posted" Another con-
tention was that the amount OF damage re-
sulting from the tearing down OF the fence
/ was not specified. This omission, the
/ court save, Is an example OF tue l0osenesa
/ with which the pleading is drawn. On
these points. the court says the non
suit should have been granted. Cause re-
mandsd with directions to reverse judR-
meat and enter non-suit. Opinion By
| Justice HarWood.
/ Thomas II. Stevenson, respondent versus
/ L. +. Cadwell appeal from Gallstln
/ ooanty. Ibis was a motion TO dismiss APP
/ peal from Justices court TO the district
/ court on the ground that IL was not filed
/ within the time allowed. The motion was
/ anted. IL appears that it Wrs case Ia
which appellant was entitled 10 Jary trial.
/ and that there was no jury in attendance
/ until the day the case was docksted. he
| supreme court says that the respondent was
therefore in no way injured. The rule
regarding al pea fiom Justices cou. 81 was
simply a regulation OF practice which the
district court must apply with reasonable
/ discretion. The action OF the district court
Is reyers d, and the case remanded With
instrEctIons TO deny tho motion TO dismiss
she appeal. Opinion by Justice Dewitt.
George T. MAY, respondent. Vsrsas Gao.
| H. Hill ct al, defendants, and John Bran
Agan ct al, appellants. Appeal from JEFF
fs,son county. Nay claimed funds IN she
/ hands Of Hill b. virtue OF an assignment
/ of the same. Branagan claimed the same
| on ga nishment. The jury found for May. A
motion for a new tiial was deRisd and aD-
zeal taken. Judgment affirmed. Opinion
/ by Justice DeWt'.