The Helena independent., 1894-10-23
PUT IT OFF TOO LONG.
jeremiah Wolf Loses His Properly
TO the Great Falls Townsile
Company
The Supreme Court Divides Up
in Deciding tho Appeal
Taken
Judges Psmbsrton aud Dswtt Thiak
Wolf Guilty Of Laehss. nut Judge
Harwood Dosa Not.

The Great Falls Townsltc company
won case in the supreme court OF
Montana yesterday. II was the case
OF jeremiah Wolf, plaintiff ana respon-
dent, versus the Great Falls water
Power and Townsite company, Paris
Gibson and o. c. Morrison. defendants
and respondents. by an agreement en-
tered into Jan. %, 1857. James J. Hln
and others. the predecessors OF the
townsite company. sold 10 Wolf a lot
In Great Falls. on the following oondi-
tions: Wolf was 10 build a house OF
the value OF not less than $500 on or be-
fore Aug. 1, 1887. lie was TO pay $3.50
for the lot In four equal payments, one
down and the others on April ~, July
% and oct. 2s. with interest at ten per
cent; and to pay all taxes. The town
site company succeeded Hill and
others. The evidence was TO the effect
that Wolf made the nrst payment only
on the lot that he failed 10 pay the
taxes before commencing his suit, that
he failed 10 complete the house accord
ing To the terms OF the agreement. but
that on Oct. %, 1887, he rendered the re-
mainder OF the purchase money and
interest, which the company refused 10
accept. On April 20. 1891, Wolf brought
suit TO compel the company TO COM
plete their part OF the contract. The
judge OF the lower court. before whom
the case was tried without a jury, In
his opinion, said that the purpose OF
the vendors In requiring the purchaser
to erect n building was to secure nh
la, 4. Ia af...
property. The court gave Judgment
for Wolf for specific performance. The
appeal 10 the supreme court was from
an order overruling a motion for new
trial.
The supreme court, In an opinion
written by Chief Justice Pemberton
and concurred In by Associate Justice
Dewitt, reverses the lower court and
remands the case for new trial. The
vital question, the supreme court says,
was whether Wolf was guilty OF lachcs
In bringing his suit. II says he waited
for more than three years before bring
Ing his suit. after the company had
re-entered and taken possession OF the
premises In controversy. "The court
finds" the opinion continues. that the
object OF the vendors in requiring Wolf
10 erect the building was TO enhance
and that II would have had that effect
At the time the contract was made
Great Falls was a small. struggling vii
lage. At the time of the commence
ment OF the suit. II had grown TO be a
fiourishing city. The court does not
think Wolf could wait TO see whether
his contract was a good one. and II
so, ask a court OF equity to inforce II
and II bad one. ignore and renounct
IT,"
Associate Justice Harwood dissent'
from the majority of the court. II,
says: "It cannot be logically held that
right or demand is stale merely be
cause q certain period OF time ha'
elapsed since the right OF action arose
II II is still within the statute OF limi
tation." The judge then reviews tn,
history OF the transaction and showi
that Wolf borrowed si25 to help build
the house, assigning his contract for
the purchase OF the lot to Paris Gibson
of the townsite company. for going on
his note. When the note came due
Wolf was unable TO pay II. A few week.
later, having secured the money, he
went to the bank. found out the full
amount due and informed the banker
that he would call next day and pay
II. But on returning next day he was
told that Paris Gibson had paid the
note. He offered Paris Gibson the mo ney
several times. but II was refused. When
the last payment came due on the loi
he borrowed the money and offered tn,
company all that he owed them. but II
was refused. Wolf was living In tn,
house at the time. Though not finished
II was habitable. Wolf was also holding
ranch claim at the time and moved
10 II. The townsite company then tool
possession OF the lot and the house on II
''If we sat like schoolmasters," say
Judge Harwood. with watch In hand
10 question litlghnts who came int,
court within the period prescribed b!
statute, as TO the reason they did no
come a little sooner, | think the ex
cuse given by Wolf, corrpborated by al
other facts shown. is worthy OF con
consideration. But In my opinion 1
is more To the purpose OF the law to in
quire whether circumstances have 81
changed while Wolf delayed his actor
as TO make IL inequitable to compel 4
conveyance. But no such circumstance
are shown. The only change in the con
ditions or circumstances OF the prop
erty was that after unlawfully evict
Ing Wolf the townslte company expend
ed on the property the small sum nee
essary 10 finish II and avail themselves
OF VOLTS expenditures. The increase II
! the value OF the property arose from
nothing the company did I'm relation
thereto. but from general and remot
causes. The record shows that wheI
Wolf was oppresslvely thrust out OF tn,
property. he was compelled by his i'm
poverished condition TO lie by and SCI
the property which he had so ncarl.
gained constantly rise In value I'm tn
unlawful grasp OF the company an,
that increase was without the act o
the compny except the expenditure o
triilng sum, After he was dispos
sessed. OF course he could not finisl
the house. The company had no Lawful
right TO undertake to enforce forfeitur
and eviction, without demand or notice
or process OF court They had the powe
10 enforce contract by lawful mean
and this is sufficient for any citizen o
this state. The facts. In my opinion
| fully warranted the decision OF the tria
court awarding specific performance
You can buy adress pattern Al Tho Boo Hiy
with Innings included ~ cheap as the prlco &
| cloth.
Dress patterns at The Fec nlvo cheaper tina