The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-02-04

Mantle commenced two suits against
1 the defendant Largey on or about the
same day. The subject matter OF each
suit related to transactions OF the
plaintiff and defendant as to the Spec
ulator mining claim. Largey, upon be-
ing served with the summons. went TO
his attorney, Nir Mcbride. and inform
ed him that Mr.. Mantle had sued him
in reference to the SpeCulatOr mining
claim. Mcbride found a suit entitled
Mantle vs.. Largey In Department ! 81
the district court lie appeared in that
suit. not being informed that there was
any other action in the same name.
The other suit Of Mantle vs.. Largey
was i'm department II. After the time
OF answering had expired. Largey was
defaultcd I'm that suit. which is tho
one now on appeal. Largcy then moved
to open and set aside the default The
district court granted that motion.
From this order the appeal IS taken
The order is affirmed by the supreme
court. the court holding that there was
sufficient showing of an cNcusahln neg
let 20 warrant the district court in
setting aside the default. Opinion by
Dewitt.
T. T.. Congdon. respondent. vs. the
Butte Consolidated Railway company.
appellant. This action Is for work and
labor performed by plaintir for defend
ant amounting 70 about So Oo0 The
summons was issued and served upon
the cowrany's manager. TIL" defend
ant ucClsctHd to appear and it's default
was entered The defendant moved u
open the default. which motion was de-
MED. From that order this appeal
grounds set m for sustaining the de-
fault We're that the defendants hal not
been properly served with the sum
mons The supreme court holds that
VN,a
order Of the district court opinion by
Dewitt
Thompson Campbell assignee Of y c.
Davis. vs.. T.. H. Ervine appellant This
action was commenced by !. O.. Davis
to recover the value Of material and
labor furnished TO defendant and for
the foreclosure Of a lien upon tho
Christian church Of tho city of Butte
for which church the material and Ia
bor were furnished. After the COM
plaint was filed the defendant filed an
answer. After these pleodings were
filed, the plaintiff assigned his claim 10
Thompson Campbell. Campbell there
upon appeared In court and was sub
stituted for the original plaintiff lie
then filed a replication. Tho case aft
erwards went to trial and the defend
ant objected TO the plaintiffs being al
lowed TO prove assignment from the
original plaintiff To Campbell The
court allowed this proof and a verdict
and Judgment were rendered In favor
OF the plaintiff. The defendant appeal
ed. The supreme court arirms the
Judgment. holding that the evidence OK
the assignment from Davis to Campbell
was competent. opinion by Dewitt
+. Baldwin, respondent. W. A. Thoma-
son. appellant. Judgment was render
ed for S4i in favor Of the plaintiff I'm
the lower court Tho judgment and
order denying the motion for "A new
trial are reversed and the cause re-
manded. opinion by chief Justice Penn
berton.
Mary Knowles. respondent. W.. 6. VI.
Nixon. appellant. This was an action
TO recover on "A promissory note. The
defendant admitted making the note.
but claimed payment Tho jury found
for the plaintiff and Judgment was rem
dered for S231.l5 The supreme court
holds that the lower court erred In
instructing the jury and reversed the
judgment and order denying a new
trial Opinion by Chief Justice Penn
berton
John Floyd. plaintiff and appellant.
vs.. Samuel johnson. defendant and re-
spondent, decision by Associate Jus
tice Dewitt. The plaintiff sued the de-
fendant on a promissory note The
fendant and Judgment was accordingly
entered. PlainunT appealed and tho
supreme court reversed the Judgment
OF the lower court and remanded the
case for a new trial