The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-04-24
THE SUPREME COURT.
A Large Number Of Decisions Handed
Down Yesterday.

Large Number of Decisions Handed
Down Yesterday.
The supreme eoart handed down q nun
Der Of opinions yesterday, as follows Her
man Klein. respondent. veraus Hanko
Bros.. appellants; appeal from Lewis and
Clarke county. The action was 20 recover
rent which accrued after Hsnks Brothers
vacated Kline'a premises. Kline set up a
lease. by which be was 20 make certain i'm
pTovements on bis property By Aug. 10.
1880, and 10 lease the same 10 defendan
for Ave Years ~ $3.50 n month. Defen-
danta admitted the execution OF the lease
but alleged that u never became ehectual.
because the building was mover completed
as provided; and that they went into 10
under another and entirely different con
tract by which they were 10 take ~ ffom
month 70 month. A further defense was
that the building had become untenant-
able. that the roof leaked and the water
came through and injured defendants
goods. and that Kline neglected 20 make
repairs when notified and that there we're
other reasons for leaving. The lower court
struck out certain OF tho defendantH testi-
mony tending 10 sustain these allegations.
and admitted that showing their claims a.
10 the lease were co rect; and then directed
the jury 10 hnd for the plaintiff. The su-
prsme court says defendants may alloge a.
many defenses as they have. Judgment of
lower court reversed and case remandei for
new trial.
Millisrd =. MeGuire, appellant, versus
A. J. Edaall et al, TssnondeRts; appeal
rom Gailatin. The question Involved in
this oaae was whether the lower court erred
In permitting defendants by amendment
OF their answer. 20 plead a counter aim
against the demand OF plaintiff. which
counter claim mAtured aftei the action be-
gan. The supreme court saYG the counte,
claim muat be one existing and matured
for action In favor Of the party asserting
ths same a. the time the action was com
menoed wherein the counterclaim is sought
TO be pleaded. but that the error may be
corrected By modification Of the judgment.
Causesr .manded with directions to give
plaintiff judgment without regard 10 de
fendants counter claim, which 10 disal-
lowed because 10 was not eligible 10 be
pleaded In this action.
Richard Grove appellant, versus Allen
B. La Mott and Sebastian Mustum, re-
spondsnt; appeal from Gallatin. 10 secure
payment Of a $1,000 note given Wustum.
plaintiff gave a chattei mortgage of his half
interest in a band of horses. The note and
mortgage were assigned TO La Mott. After
maturity OF the debt La Mott took the
horses and sold Crowe's portion for $1,000,
although they we're worth more; ana also
sold some real estate. pledged for the same
note. Grove wanted to pay all that was
due on his mortgage. after an accounting
and credit theFeon of the proceeds Of the
sale. The lower court sustained demurrer
10 the complaint on the ground that IS did
not state facts aufheieBt to constitute a
cause of action. The supreme court sus-
taina the lower court because Crows failed
to show that In taking the property the ds-
PENDANTS proceeded contrary to or in
neglect Of the terms of the mortgage.
William Ai!lgan, adm illustrator, respond
ent, verGus John Cuff. appellant; appeal
from Deer Lodge county. IL is an action TO
recover possession of certain property IN
PhilipsburR. Plaintiff recovered judgment
In the lower court. The supreme court re-
verses judgment and Tsmands she case for
new trial.
j. M. Watkins ct al. appellants. versus
Moses Morris et al, respondents; motion to
dismiss appeal granted on one & Ound, that
notice was not served within one year of
judgment, but refused on other grounds.
.eavine case pending on appeal from order
denying new trial.
Montana Lumber and Manufacturing q
Company, respondents. versus Obelsk
Mining Company, appellants; motion TO
dismiss appeal denied.