The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-06-04
THE HIGH TRIBUNAL
Six Opinions Handed Down By the
Supreme Court.
CASE OF THE YELLOW JACKET
Some Decisions Which May Be of
Much Interest to Those Who
Contemplate the Location
of Mining Claims.
special Dispatch to the standard


Helena, June 3.-The supreme court
handed down six opinions to-day.
Duncan MCGOWAN. appellant. VS.. Ed
ward Maclay. respondent: from Meagh-
er county. Plaintiff applied for a
United States patent for the Yellow
Jacket mining claim and Maclay filed
adverse claims. In the district court
Maclay's demurrer to the complaint
was sustained and judgment entered
for him. The chief point raised in
Maclay's demurrer was that the verif-
cation of McCowan's location notice 10
the claim was not sufficient. The su-
preme court holds the point was well
taken. MCGOWAN contends that even
IL the location notice was not verified
or If there was no notice at ALL he
would still have a right TO the claim.
as he and his predecessors in interest
have been in possession of the property
and worked IL as a mine for a period
equal to the statute of limitations in
this state. The supreme court does
not believe the case is covered in law
to that effect and the judgment of the
lower court is therefore affirmed
Opinion by Justice De Witt
John Burg ct al, appellants, VS.
Charles Koegel ct al, respondents.
from jefferson county. An action to
quiet title to mining claim. The plain
tiffs were non-suited, the chief ground
for defendants motion being that the
location notice was dated Jan. l, 1891,
but was verified as appears by affida-
Wit Jan. /. 1890. The supreme court
says: A declaratory statement on oath
made perhaps a year, or at least some
time before the discovery and location.
is certainly not a declaratory state
ment of location. A person surely can
not make affidavit of facts before the
facts came into existence. Judgment
affirmed. Opinion by Justice De Witt.
Griggs, Cooper & Co, respondents,
VS.. Kalispell Mercantile company. ap-
pellants: Flathead county. The action
was brought to recover on a promis-
sorry note and open account. Judgment
was obtained by plaintiffs and attach
ment issued Motions to dissolve were
filed. The motions raised practically
the same questions of law passed up
on and denied in Newell VS.. Kalispell
Mercantile company. The order of the
district court in refusing to dissolve the
attachment is affirmed. Opinion by
Justice Hunt.
j. A. Lewis, repondent VS.. Joseph
Weyerhost, appellant; Silver Bow. An
action brought on two promissory
notes. Plaintiff contended that defend
ant had made the notes TO Robert
Grix, who had assigned them 10 him.
Weyerhorst alleged that the notes were
assigned to Lewis for no consideration.
Lewis made a motion for judgment on
pleading and was sustained. The su-
preme court held that the denial pre-
sented a material issue for trial and
that the lower court therefore erred
in granting judgment on pleadings.
Judgment is reversed and the case re-
manded. Opinion by Chief Justice
Pemberton.
f. NJ. Gardner, receiver of the Gala
tin Canal company, respondent VS..
Sheriff White. Caldwell ct al, appel
ants, from Gallatin county. The ac-
tion was brought to restrain the sher-
iff from selling the property of the ca
nal company 10 satisfy judgment OBJ
tanned by T. a. NARROW for about $685.
0O0 The injunction was granted i'm the
lower court and defendants appealed.
The supreme court cites authorities to
show that when property is in the
hands of receivers there can be ordi-
narily no interference with the receiv-
ers' possession where the execution has
Deen issued dlleT lne TecelNeIS were
appointed. Judgment affirmed. Opin-
ion by Justice Hunt.
George r. Newell & Co.. appellants.
VS.. Kalispell Mercantile company, re-
spondents: Flathead county. An ac-
tion brought TO recover on notes and
accounts. An execution was issued.
Defendants motion to dissolve is sus-
tanned. The supreme court holds that
under the facts as set forth i'm the de-
fendants' motion to dissolve the execu-
tion the district court erred in hold
ing that any portion Of the debt was
not due. as was alleged. order of low
er court is reversed. opinion by JUS
tice Hunt.