The Helena independent., 1894-07-03
Four Opinions Are Handed Down
by The Supreme Justices
on Monday
A Corporation Responsible for It's
Officers Aots After Having
Adopted Thorn
oalsin vs. Mac Company, johnson va
nlelsnbsrr. Johnson Va Case, Aad
kwselEsr W. Diehi.

fhfioh bAlNlni responuent, versus hho
Mining aud Millne compsns, appelIautl
up cal from the dist lot court ~ Levi, and
Ola ks county. Gavin brought suit for
$3.50. 40. the value OF 7. t6s shares Of stock,
nnd attorneys fees on account of note
Of The eomfany for 81, 22G. The note tTo-
dod 10 attorneys fees. The company
dsnl d Iva liability for the attorneys fees,
having paid tho p'ineipel and in,sfss, Of
the note, pa 3 Of IL before the action was
b oughi aud oil before the case was tried.
Eor ihes reagouA the supreme court says
the company was not liable for tue a.tor-
ney's feoa.
The stock, II appears was left In tie
hands OF the secretary OF tho company. and
assigned by Calvin ,o another party, The
secretary refused 10 deliver II to Calvin
when called TO-. . he eompany defended
tho action OF ita secretary on the eround
that he was justified In Withholding IL until
the pa ty 10 whom Il was assigned either
reassigned II or ordered IL delivered 10
Calvin. The Jury foun for plaintiff. Tho
supreme court thlnks the verdict Of the
jnryb YELL suppo ted by tho evidence.
The opinion fursher says that ,ho company
having adopted The action OF II. secretary.
assumed the liability for tina, action.
1T Ia proper to further remark" says
the court 'that II 10 exceedingly doubtful
that a corporation. without special authol-
ization, can become purchaser OF its own
stock, which has been sold aud outstanding
In the hands Of individual stockholders. IL
h..x. ss.aAt ia. IA
fully reyenting stookholier I ON having
tho nss and beusht of his stock. But, as
before remarked, tho corporation In this
Gaze arpeaia as far as oan be Hsoeftained
from tie record, not to have relied upon
sdeh arounds OF defense. We may
therefore ve'y pfopsrly presume for
the purposes of this action, that
all conc rned In the eorpo alton, officers
and stockholders, ooncured in adopting
the conversion Of the stock by its score.
tary as thsir own act. II that be the case,
IL includes nll who have any rights in.
volvsd. A principal may adopt 90 Its own
the unauthorized act OF transaction OF an
agent; and having taken that position ia
defense Of q suit, thsy oould not afterward,
on APP cal. DO heard 70 deny the aRenra
authority.
"The foregoing remarks nj on this view
OF the case aie made In order that this case
may In no manner be regarded as affirming
that an Incorporated company may be held
liable under such circumstances IL tho
proper defense Was ~ esented, repudiatinR
the transaction as we'll Nc the authority OF
It's officer 10 bind 1, therein"
The judgment OF the lower court Ia mod
ihed by disallowing attorneys fees. Other
wise the judgment 10 affirmed.
Peter johnson. plaintiff. versus N. j.
Bielenberg, OF al, defendants, appeal from
Deer Lodge county. This 10 the appeal OF
herman Johnson, a defendant as against
Peter johnson, the plaintiff, and Patrick
Quinlnn, a defendant. Pete Johnson com-
inenced.nn action against tventy-one de-
PENDANTS 90 Determine the rights and prior
ities OF himself and the defendants in the
waters OF Dempsey creek. for the purf ose
of ifriRatinR agricultural lnnds. Upon the
trial the court found all OF tneit rights and
classified the same. and entered Judgment
accordingly. Herman johnson, n defend
ant. appealed. being dissatisfied with the
disposition Of 100 inches Of water ss be-
tweenhimse ON the one aide. and Peter
johnson and Patrick Qunian on the othef.
The cont fonnd that Herman johnson ap-
ropria,ed l50 inches In 1866. Tho court then
found that Peter Johnson and Patrick
Quinlan had sincs 1867. held and usei ad-
yel sely 100 Of these inches. But the court
also found that Peter johnson and Patrick
QuinlRn had obtained this 100 inches, and
owned IL bS reason OF Appropriation in
1867. With these two findings made, the
court in Ia judgment, gave this 100 inches
10 Petet Johnson and Patrick Quinlan.
de man johnson complained that the jad9.
lucnt a. to this 100 inchOs Ia not suppo ted
Ly tho findings. Tue supreme conrt says
that the findings OF the court in respect TO
this 100 inches are apparently wholly ineon.
| cousistent. Tho case ~ therefore Iemanu-
ed, and the district court IL directed 10 take
testimony, make fndinas and z nder judg
mont upon this point only ana let 10 be de-
te mined who 10 entitled TO the 100 inches
Of water out OF tbs lb0 inches appropriated
by Herman JOhnson in 1866.
Stnto VI FOL A. y. Johnson OF nj. versna
J. 4. Case. justice OF the peace; appeal
from Missoula county district court IN dis
missing Application for writ or certioraTi
against tbs justice OF the peace and afiirm-
ing his judgment. Tao original action
was by Edmund Giggy against A. L. john
son and John II. Bell on q note. he de.
ftnso pleaded tender Of the amount with
interest before the commencement OF the
action. The jury in the Justices court
gave ia Rmsnt for plaintin for principal
and interest. and gave defendants their
eosis Judgment was entered accordingly.
Eight days later q motion was made 10 tax
the costa 10 the defendant. Tho disttiot
court refused q writ of certiorari 10 compel
tho justice 10 show cause why he Ieyo sed
the judgment. lhe supreme court reyers0s
the district court aud orders that the writ
be sustainedj and Rlao hnnuls the iudg-
mcnt OF the justice. Justice Ha wood dis
ssuts,
Albert G. swss,ssr. respondent, vorsu,
George X. Diehl et al., APPELLANTS Appeal
/ ftom LOWS and O Oarke county. Tho Ques-
tion involved on appeal was whether the
allegations OF tho amonded separate
anawer on the iatt of dependant Mantle
were sufficient 90 constitute q defense. The
suii was TO forsooss q mortgage aud en-.
force gym nt OF a note for 81, $40 given by
Diebl. The prOtoity was transferred Ia
Mantle Htter tue mortgage was given, and
tits alag d thbt on0 Of tho conditions OF
the tnhsisr waa that Mantle vas 90 pay
the nDts. swostser demanded judgmsn,
against Mantle tor tho 4. fielenoy remain.
log over ait tho sale OF ths nortgAgod
pfemiAra lttnutter 20 tho sOpATats
answer Of Mantle wRa sustained, and Man
tie n, pealsd. Tho ground on which the
lover court hell that Mantle's anawef wa,
insufficient was that 10 he sought b. avoid
pa meut of tho debt because ths condition
obliVaiinI him to do 30 had been inserted
by Dishl through iTsuJ, aud the deed wal
reGcIVcd by his agent without authority,
NHntie should. on disoove lug tho alleged
fraud, have rendered deed OF the land
bnok to Dith. The 80 rene court says
Mantle has q right TO delenI against the
imposition OF n condition upon him which
ho never ngfesd to and never author 'zed
Hnr agent 10 contract on hls behalf. JudR-
mrnt reversed ana case omanded for fuf-
thor action.
Foster ii'o-hook hid glove, only 81 At This