The Anaconda standard., 1895-04-23
THE SUPREME COURT
Five Opinions Handed Down by That
August Body.
GRACE M. E. CHURCH SUIT
Judgment OF the Lower Court At
fIrmed In the Case OF Charles
Fenton VS.. The West Iron
Mountain Mining Company.

Special Dispatch 10 the Standard.
HELENA, April 22.-The supreme court
to-day handed down five opinions:
Grace Methodist Episcopal church, re-
spondent, vs. John Z. Richards, appel
LIANT. The suit was on a promissory note
made by the defense in February, 1884. to
the order of the Continental Oil company.
The note was due Jan. /, 1890. The note
finally came into the possession of Isaac
L. Blake, who, on n continuation to Grace
Methodist church, endorsed 1t to j. l..
Cullin, secretary, who in turn turned it
over to the church. The defendant
claimed that the note, which was for
5000, was given in payment OF what he
did not receive, and that it was transferred
originally that 1t might prevent him from
pleading any defense which he might
have against the original payee. The
jury rendered verdict for the
plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was
made and overruled, from which an APP
peal was taken. The supreme court holds
that whatever may have existed between
the defendant and the original payee, the
church could not be held responsible.
Justice Hunt on this says, in part; "The
all important fact stands out in bold re-
lief that this plaintiff is not shown to be
directly or indirectly party to any collu-
sion or favor of any kind what
ever. Their legal attitude is there
fore simply that of any bona
fide holder OF commercial paper who
required the same before maturity and in
the course of business without notice of
anything which impeaches it's validity.
Thus they are brought within the elemen-
tary rules of law which enables them to
recover as against the maker of the note.
Even though between him and the ori ginal
payee equities existed which could have
been availed OF. The judgment is af-
firmed.
Charles FELTON,, respondent, VS.. the
West Iron Mountain Mining company,
appellant. This case was appealed from
the district court of Deer Lodge. Ii is on
action brought by the plaintiff TO recover
for labor and services performed as SUI
perintendent OF the defendants mines
and for money expended and goods fur
nished for its use and benefit. The
answer of the defendants states all the
allegations contained in the complaint as
TO the indebtedness sued for, and pleads
a counter claim against tho plaintiff. On
trial the jury made special findings and
rendered general verdict for FELTON,.
From the judgment and an order overrul-
Ing tlOtiOu LOT ntW tTltl tIc utltuQaut
appealed. Opinion was by Chief Justice
Pemberton.
There were three questions of facts sub
mitted to the jury. First-Did the plain-
tiff perform the services aud expend
money as he alleges? Second-Did the
plaintiff perform such service outside of
his duties as an officer OF the company
Third-Was the defendants counter
claim established by the evidence? These
questions of fact were all decided for Fell
ton and Justice Pemberton holds properly
SO. The defendant contends that plain
tiff could not recover on implied contrac
for services. After quoting the lower
courts instructions the supreme court
says: 1--WE see no reason why party
may not recover of n corporation for such
services, under the same circumstance CO
that would permit of recovery against a
partnership or individual The judg-
ment is affirmed.
Hayden w. Wheeler, ct al, appellant
VS.. w. A. Jones, ct al, respondents. from
Cascade. This is an action OF replevin.
The plaintiffs allege they are the owners
of a large amount of jewelry in the pos
session OF the defendants. The sheriff
was only able to find a portion of the
jewelry claimed by the plaintiffs. The
case was tried before a jury. which rem.
dered the following decislon: 1--WE, the
jury, find for tho defendants" judy
inent was entered by the clerk against the
plaintiffs for costs and the court modified
the judgment by ordering the plaintiffs TO
return the jewelry taken from the defend.
ants. On motion, modified judgment
was vacated. but was finally entered. To
this the plaintiffs excepted and appeal
from the modified Judgment SO rendered,