The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-03-20

have aprointei stone OF wooden statue
IA 90 appoint "a santient being 90 dt'oharRs
the duties Of building inspector. TO
hfs Interpretation OF the provisions or the
ordinance declaring bis duties Is core et'
whether seeing that the PROVISIONS OF
tha ordinance were ooe5ed. OF 80,
utterly ohliv.ous 20 that ihoL
amounted o. tbs same thing; as iat
a. responsibility on the part OF the inspeo-
tor % exert himself 60 demand obedience
or oaus8 arrest OF Vio.atnfs, WehI una
such inter rotation tho inspector tnlSn'
See dangerous structures Use nv IA VIC
lation OF che ordinance, 90 fail ana destroy
life ami IT. pert. and Yet mother demand
campiiaucs with, nor report VIOLATION OF
the d dinancs 60 othor municipal authorl-
ties IN the attempt az least 90 prevent the
mischief by setting IN motion such mesns
a. thr municipal government has proNi1eA
20 CORRECT such abuse. he intefpretNioh
il not according TO the common under
stauding Of the effect OF such inJunctions
OF Law, a. fonni IN the ordinance prescrlo-
ing the duty OF tie building Inspector.
chief Justice pemberton. the other
judges conourfing. wrote the opinion ia 1ue
csaa Of William N'nitnWatte, hppellhnt'
versus Phillip Harvey. administrator OF tne
estate 81 Joseph Leighton. deceased, 70
spoudsnt: appeal from Custer county. Inc
csse crew out OF a suit against the admin
ist.atof ON a contract between Leighton eh
al IN lsSl for Transporting freight from
Bismarck g. Fort Bufori. bF boat SAT-
Vs. bfousht against Leighton et al BY at
tachment Ia Dakota Ia 1897. aud Jndsmeut
obtained. ln the present suit platntin sels
up the Dakota Judgment Defendant MADE
4 motion that all that part OF tue complains
referring 90 she Dakota judgment be
stricken out as Irrelevant on the ound
tast tbs Dakota Judgment hal no binding
fleet on tho administrator for the same
estate in Montana. This motion was Al
lowed BY the trial cou aad ths sut rene
court says there was 10 eros. ram
till further contended that leighton
In his lifetime, by written q omiss 90 pay
on demand. removed the bar OF the STATUTE
Of limitations which u is conceded would
defeat she claim. unless 80 relieved bY that
written promise. TINS written promise 10
pleaded as sufficient to constitute an in-
de Yendent cause Of action, regardless OF the
force and effaot given 70 ths Dakota 1udg-
mont. To this part of the complaint a de-
murrer was made and sustained. The su-
preme court held that the trial court WAS
risht IN this and therefore afhrms its judg-
ment.
Another decision was in the matter Of the
estate Of Frank Meuiheraii appeal from
Gallatin county. The claim OF one Men
denhau had been disallOwei on the protest
of two creditors Of the estate. The appeal
was taken on the ground that she claim had
been previously allowed BY the administ A.
tor and approved by the court, aud could
not DO attacked. The supreme court rules
that 10 eau toe attacked under section 26l OF
ths probate practice act, which says: "On
the day appointed, or any subsequent
DAY 90 which the hearing may be post
ponsd by the court, any person interested
in the estate may appear and ME his excsp-
tiona IN writing. aud CONTEXT tbs claim.
The previous allowance OF the aeeount ~
the administrator and Its approval BIZ the
"a AHm
Judgment. Mendenhalfs claim against the
estate vas for ths amouat alleged 20 have
been paid 90 Judgment in the
United States court as bondsman
for Meuiuerat. ana that his claim
was therefore not barred by the statute OF
limitations. The supreme court finds that
the facts we're that the amount paid 10 the
court was on a compromise, and the claim
therefore became an open account, and as
such was barred BY size statute OF llnlti-
tions; and that the administrator must
plead ths statute OF limitations against lt.
Opinion BY Justice Dewitt. Chief Justice
Pembeftou eoncu ring, Justice HarWood
dissenting.
The other opinion was on tho case Of
VIM. Muth, receiver o. GrecuhoOi BONN a.
Co., respondent. versus =. H. Erwin. appel-
liant; app al ON Lewis and Clarke. The
receiver brought suit on attachments % en-
TO- o. payment Of note. and certain pro. -
erty was seized. motion was made 90
quash the attachment On TIE ground that 10
aid not appear in tle complaint that tbs re-
ceivor WINS susLoriz3 "a by the court 20 bring
the action. Iho compliant was tnen
amended, ard the couft overrulsd the mo-
tion to dissolve. TINS was appealed FROM.
The supreme court ntiirms the action Of the
lower court. Opinion b. Jultice Hsrwoo q.
Imported pattern hats and b1ansts will be-
shown Me1lesiay aui Thursday ~ Mrs. 5chl-
fal1t
Got % Hot SPRING. Ars.. 50. bert Lea
Route n So. Louie ky. shortest and lost.