The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-26
ANDY GETS THE BANK
The Supreme Court Says That the
Disputed Stock Is His.
IT'S WORTH A MILLION
One Big Slioe OF the Judge Davis
Estate Disposed Of and Out Of
the Reach of the Rest Of
the Claim ants.
Special Dispatch to the STANDARD.

in an opinion by Justice william Hunt
to-day decided thar Andrew ]. Davis
jr.. is rightful poesessor of the $50
shares of FIRST National bank OF Butte
stock, worth a million dollars, which
have been In dispute since the death
of Judge Davis. Opinion Is very full
taking UP more than one hundred type
written pages. Following is a synopsis
James A. Talbot. administrator and ap-
pellant, vs.. A. ]. Davis. Jr.. respondent.
from Silver Bow county; admanistz'a-
tor to recover $50 shares of the First
National bank of Butte. worth $1,000.-
900. A. ]. Davis. jr.. held stock GER
tifioaites and refused to surrender them.
claiming the stock was given to him
by Judge Davis about six weeks before
the lajtters death. At the trial In district
court is was proved that Judge Davis
had handed the certificates over with
the words: II always intended that for
you and now Will do It," At this time
he was very sick but went to Tacoma
six weeks before his death. He also
said that II he did not come back or
anything happened, he wanted Andy
to have that" meaning the stock. 1t
was contended that these latter words
made the gift a testamentary one by
nature and that it was not valued as a
gift causa mortis. 1t was also claimed
that because Judge Davis did not In
dorse the certificates the gift could not
take effect; and that because stock was
voted in the name Of Judge Davis after
the gift and before ne died. the gift
was revoked.
The court reviews the law on gifts
cause mortis from the days of jus
TIM on down TO the present time.
1t is decided that under the
facts. a complete gt1t was passed
as between Judge Davis and
ment of close OF action is not neces-
sary where there is delivery with an
intent to give. 1t is also decided that
the right of dominion passed to Andy
Davis and that as against the admin
istrator and the bank he can enforce
his equitable title.
The court holds that there IS no diff
ference between National bank shares
and others and that delivery of muni-
ments of title is lawful and sufficient
between the parties. If there was an
intent to give and no recovery or revo-
cation by the donor. The court says
that the stock was voted under a proxy
to ]. Z. Davis. dated before the gift
and while Judge Davis was absent and
without his knowledge and that the
election of bank directors had to be
held by law ait the date 1t was held.
Jan. IA, 1890; but that proof shows that
Andy Davis directed the voting and
was the beneficiary of the stock at the
time, in possession and full control. the
legal title alone being in Judge Davis
name.
1t also appeared that Judge Davis for
a year before he died said he intended
to give Andrew Davis the bank and
That 1t should form no part of his es-
tate. There was testimony also that
he said first, before he became too al
TO lack knowledge of his affairs, chat
he had given IL to Andrew. From all
this the court finds that the facts as
found by Judge Meditation are sustain
ed by the evidence. Many authorities
are cited. In conclusion the court says:
Our conclusion Is that this gift must
be sustained. We believe in adhering
bo the rule that where a party claims
by way of a donation causa morris, he |
should make out a strong case. 1t is |
therefore the duty of the court to give |
particular heed to every fact and cir |
>umstance in the testimony, being very |
careful to avoid any conclusion not |
'ully sustained by credible evidence. |
On the other hand. there is a cardinal |
principle never to be host sight of. /
lamely that the law permits a man u |
make gifts in apprehension of his death /
md II he has done SO in due manner. |
while in full possession of mis- senses
ind with delsberataon and intent be- |
stow his personal property upon an
,ther. IL would be a fearful injustice
o nullify that intent and take away |
he property from the person justly /
untitled thereto, The more we have
tudied this case the stronger has
,rown our conviction that Judge Davis
gave the bank stock TO
lis nephew and never by any word or
Iced, sign1ied any desire whatever to
evoke the gift
Other opinions were handed down as
ollows:
Charles Criswell. respondent, vs.. the
Iontana Central Railway company,
rom Cascade county. The plaintiff,
rho was a brakeman in the employ OF
he company, obtained judgment
gafnst II for 5000 for personal in
uries received while on his train IN the
treat Falls yards. The locomotive OF
is train had no headlight and switch
ngine. running into the train, knocked
he plaintiff from the car and broke his
g. He alleged negligence of the COM
any as the conductor ana engineer
a1led 10 provide against the accident.
he defendant claimed thai the plain
m was injured by his own negligence
nd that OF the conductor and engineer,
nd that the latter were fellow servants
the plaintiff and thai the company
'as not hs5le for injury received as
ssult Of the carelessness OF q. fellow
srvant. The supreme court holds that
be company IS Eable for injuries re-
sived through the carless1ess OF a
IperiOr by an employee wsio Is with
u fault himself The judgment OF the
Twer court = affirmed. Opinion by
1stice dewitt.