The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-01-28
FOUR MORE OPINIONS
The Lower Court Judgment in the
Maud 5. Case Reversed.
ELIAS LYTLE WINS A SUIT
Tracy vs.. Harmon. In Which De-
fendant Wins-John w. Morse OF
Phillpsburg Is Entitled to His
Rent Money From County.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

rSiurflrI IOur OPINIONS UD-day. I'ne mos
important Is the case from Butte in
volving the Maud S. claim. IN which
Judgment is reversed. Following are
the cases decided: James A. Murray Ct
al. respondents. va. Jane Polglase ct
al, appellants; from Silver Bow. This
action is upon an adverse claim in the
land office. Jane Polglase and others
made application for a patent for the
Ramsdell claim. James A. Murray and
Others filed an adverse claim ant
brought suit TO Determine who was en-
titled to proceed for the patent. Murray
and his partners relied for tide upon
the Maud mining claim. Dec %. 1887.
they obtained a final receipt from the
receiver of the land Office, burt did not
represent their ground in 1881 or 1SSS.
Upon trial. the plaintiffs produced a
receivers final receipt and relied upon
that for the title. The defendants there
upon offered to prove that the final re
ceipt OF the plaintiffs had been can
celled by the land office at Helena,
which ruling had been affirmed by the
commissioner OF the general land Office
and by the secretary Of the Interior.
This evidence was offered to destroy
the force of the final receipt. The dis
trict court refused to allow this testi-
mony and irected the jury 10 find for
the plaintiffs. The defendants appeal
ed. The supreme court reversed the
judgment and orders a new trial. hold
ing 4; was an error to exclude the dscl-
sions OF the land department. setting
aside uhe plaintiffs receivers receipt.
The district court refused to allow the
hand office decisions in evidence. De
fendauts counsel offered TO present
simply the decisions and have the court
cut out the opinion and reasons for
them. The district court did not even
allow this. The supreme court holds
that there was no reason why the deci-
slons could not be introduced as they
were properly certified as coming from
the land department, and the land de-
partment had Jurisdiction to cancel the
receipt. IL the decisions had been al
lowed IN evidence. the plaintiffs would
have been deprived OF their title by
virtue OF the receipbs. and would have
been obliged to rely upon the original
location and to meet the question OF
thar on-repreSentWtaon in 1887. Opln-
ion by Justice Dewttt.
Andrew Rodlni. appellant. vs. Elias
Lyle ct al, respondents. from Silver
Bow. This Is an action by the plaintiff
against Elias Lyle and his sureties on
constaole's bond. J. ID. Thoma. and II.
@. Walton. Three or four years ago
Lytle. as constable. seized the property
of Rodinf, claiming that II belonged 20
other persons. who were defendanls In
a suit In which Lyle was undertaking
TO serve a writ OF attachment. Rodini
claimed the properly as his own. and
brought suit against the constable and
recovered judgment for the sum OF
81. 500. He then brought the present
action on that judgment against J.ytle
and his surettes. These facts We're set
up an the complaint. 70 which a delnur-
rer was filed. The district court sus-
tained the demurrer and entered Judg-
ment for the Defendants. The Ulanlin
appealed. The supreme court affirms
the judgment, holding that the demur-
rers were properly sustained. The de-
cision Is important. for the supreme
court. by It, adopts rule anat Judg-
ment by a sheriff or constable as pran-
ciples Is not evidence against surettes
in an action brought TO charge the
suredes. Opinion by Justice Dewitt.
w. II. Tracy. appellant. vs. ". +.
Harmon. respondent from Gallatn
county. This Is an action for ejecnmeut.
In the court below the jury found for
the defendant. and judgment was en-
tered In hs favor. The plaintiff appeal
ed. The respondent contends that the
description OF lands N the complaint -
50 indefinite as to render the complaint
fatally defective and insufficient to sup
port the judgment. The supreme court
holds that fhis contenbon Is supported
by the record and without Srea,ttng any
oher question raised on the appeal. af-
firms the Judgment In favor OF the de-
- H. fnw.flr4 Hwr
Chief Justice Pemberoon.
w. S. Twohy. appellant. Vs. the board
OF county oomuhIS s.oners OF Granite
county and John W. Morse. respond
ents. Norse's account for 81. 100 for rent
OF house and los leased 20 the county
was allowed and ordered paid by the
board. Twohy. a taxpayer OF the coun-
ty. appealed. The respondents moved
to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that the clerk OF the board and Morse
had nor been served win the notice OF
appeal The moeion was sustained and
Twohy appealed. The record shows
THAI 4 copy Of the nOcioe OF appeal was
served on the clerk and also on Morse.
and the clerk rransm1rted t.1e papers
10 rle district court The supreme court
holds rhG. by uhe TRANSMISSION OF the
pape-rs with a copy OF the nouace OF an
peal served on him by the sheriff. the
county clerk waived any irregularity
there may have been IN the serving cf
rhe notice OF appeal The supreme
cnurs further holds that under rhe Scst-
ute. 70 was not necessary 20 serve
Morse wath a notice OF appeal % give
the district court jurisdiction rslereoS,
The Judgment Is dismissed. the appeal
= reversed and the cause remanded for
trial Opinion by Chief Justice Penn
berton- r