The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-01-16
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Two Decisions Are Handed Down Of
Interest TO Lliiganis and
Lawyers.
ono Concerned Surotios on a Bond
and the Other a Reversed
Verdict.
MAJ FinkeiateIn Ordered 20 Pay salt
Money and Attorney Tees IA HIS
TIrst Wife'a Action.

The supreme court handed down iscls-
ions Ia tVo cases yesterday. One Vas the
case Of Charles DAILY. plaintiff and reapon-
dent, versus william Milen aud L. J. Jones'
defendants and appellants; appeal from
Custer county. Opinion By Chief justice
Pemberton, the associate justices concur
ring. DAILY alleged that on July 20 lsos'
Nnen BEGAN a suit aeainst him on prom
i.sorv note for f57l With interest. he
claimed that on May p. lss9. while this
suit was pending, theJ made a settlement
which included the note on which the auh
Was brought The understanding, he SAID
was that the suit vas 60 be dismissed. In
stead Of doing so. however. hilen's aitof-
nsy on May p. 1889. goa Judgment on the
note for SOFA upon which sherih Jones
levied execution on Daly's 24OO sheep.
DAILY asked for an injunction TO prevent the
sheep being taken and sold. The jury be-
fore WHOM this latter action Was tried re-
Turned a general verdict aud number OF
special hndings In favor Of Milen and the
sheriff. Ca motion by DAILY the lower court
sat aside the general verdict, adopted the
special findings Of fact, and gave judgment
for DAILY. From this the present appeal was
taken. The supreme court says the main
issue was whether the note on which the
Judgment was rendered in the district court
vas tneluasd in tho settlement between The
parties and whether 10 was agreed that the
ami, On that note was 10 be dismissed. On
this issue the special findings Of the jury
we're in favor Of Milen and the sheriff. To
allow the lower court 10 vAcate and re-
strain the Judgment IN controversy Il was
o.c.saerv 10 show that the note had been
Included in the settlement OF May n, los9.
The findings we're the other way. he
supreme court thinks she findings OF fact
are inconsistent with aud Antagonistio 20
the Judgment. IN truth" the court says,
the findings OF fact do NOT tutho 10 or
support the Judgment" The judgment 10
therefore reversed and ths cause remanoed
for new trial.
The other decision was In the case OF
George Parrot. respondent versus John
Kane % al, appellants; appeal fiom Deer
Lodge. Opinion by Justice Dewitt, the
other judges eoncurring. IL was an action
on al appeal bond. In 1890 Parrott goa
Judgment against MARI HungelberRor for
possession of real estate. Kane % al went
sarety for an appeal 20 the supreme court.
where she action OF the court below was
affirmed Next PsTrott brought action
against the sureties on the appeal bond, for
ths rents ana profits Of the property for the
three years be WAS kept Out OF 10. lhs de-
tense was that the Judgment IN the appeal
ease on which the bond was given had never
been entered by she clerk Of the district
court. The lover court gave judgment
against the aureties. The supreme court
aiirms this Judgment, on the ground that
the suretiss had brought the appeal up and
argued It, and permitted Is TO be decided
II vas row 700 late 70 raise the objection
that the Judgment had not been entered BY
the clerk Of the court.