The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-02-12
THE STATES tIoHesr COURT.
The Ups and Downs of some OF the Peo.
ple Win Go TO Inv.


pie who Go to Law.
Special Dispatch to tho Standard.
HELENA, Feb. 11.-rnere were five cases
decided by the supreme court this morn
ing. The first was McAndrews VS.. the
Montana Union railway, an appeal from
Silver Bow. In the court below the
plaintiff recovered 5000 damages Tor in
iuries received by being thrown from n
hanl car while employed as section hand
on the defendants road. the defendant
appealed. The evidence showed that the
plaintiff had full knowledge of the danger
Gus condition of the hand car for long
time prior TO his injury. lie admits this,
but he claimed in his complaint that he
had notified the foreman of the condition
of the car and the foreman had promised
to furnish "A new one. His suit was based
on this promise to furnish a new one.
The evidence, the court says, does not
warrant the contention that there was
promise TO furnish new car. or that tho
plaintiff remained IN the service of the de-
fendant relying on such promise, and,
even If such promise had been made. the
supreme court holds that the plaintiff had
no right to rely on such a promise, as tho
evidence shows the car to have been so
absolutely dangerous that no reasonably
prudent man would have been author zed
TO act on such promises; and, further.
that the evidence shows that the plaintiff
was using tho car in such a reckless IN an
ner at tho time of the accident as to show
contributory negligence and prevent a re-
covery in his case. The judgment of tho
court below is reversed on the ground that
the evidence is insufficient to support tho
verdict. The opinion was written by
Judge Pemberton.
The case of the First National bank of
| Mlssoula VS.. Bailey, county treasurer,
came on an appeal from tho Missoula
| court. This was an action for injunction
| to restrain the collect on of taxes. In the
court below tho plaint ifs complaint was
dismissed on demurrer because IL did not
| state facts suili cicnt TO entitle plaintiff to
the relief dem tnded. The plaintiff con-
| tended that tho assessor had assessed
| among property owned by the bank, the
capital stock as the property of tho plant
| iT. The plaintiff had returned and listed
| the capital stock OF The bank with it's other
property for assessment. Tho supreme
court holds that the complaint is bad be
cause IT does aot show that tho plaintiff
/ applied to the board of equalization to
/ have its assessment corrected, and I'll AZ,
before a court of equity can interfere 10y
! Injunction, the bank should have sought
relief before that board. Tho judg-
meat of the lower court is affirmed.
Opinion by Pemberton.
Haggin vs.. Lorenz, some years ago the
plaintiff recovered judgment by default in
Deer Lodge county. for the possession o.
certain real estate supposed to he a par
of a railroad section owned by the pla ntiti
| After this judgment, IL was ascer aineC
that the ground for which jllsment wat
| rendered was not in the raIlroa section
being the result of a misdescription of tho
ground. Tho plaintiff then sought tc
amend his complaint and the judgmen
so as to make II cover the right ground
The court below refused TO permit th'
amendment, tho supreme court affirming
the Judgment of the lower court. Opiniog
by Dewitt.
Sweeney VS.. city of Butte. This was al
action for damages for injuries SUSTAINED
By reason of the plaintiffs falling through
a trap door on Main street in Butte. Tn
plaintiff recovered judgment for $3.50 II
the court below, having sustained an in
Jury OF n broken arm. The defendant ap
pealed on the principa. ground that tn
evidence failed TO show any Liability OF
the part o. the city. and also on tn
ground that the yer llct was excessive
Tho supreme court holds that there is sui
ficient evidence to supporl me verdict anr
that there was not sufficient showing tina
the verdict was excessive. The judgmen
is affirmed. Opnlon by Dewitt.