The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-04-13

VS.. l. W. Mcpherson and Melissa Lew
is. executrix of ;. W Lewis, deceased.
From Gallatin county. This Is an ac-
ton brought to set aside certain deeds
OF assignment and conveyances OF real
property. alleged To have been made
with the intent to defraud l., W. Me
Pherson. The plaintiff moved for tudg-
ment on the pleading. This motion was
overTuled. and the plaintin failing 10
further prosecute. judgment was rem
dered dismissing the plaintin COM
plaint and for costs In favor OF the ue-
PENDANTS The question presented oy
this appeal was whether the district
court erred in refusing To order judg-
ment ON the pleadings. The action OF
the lower court is sustained by Chlet
Justice Pemberton.
Gustave Noigt vs.. II. Z. Brooks *
Bros; from Fergus. This was an ac-
tion on an account stated. The ue-
PENDANTS demurred. The demurrer was
overruled. and the defendants electing
to stand upon their demurrer. the court
rendered judgment In favor OF plaintin'
The appeal is from the Judgment. Juds-
ment affirmed.
f.. l.. Mahoney vs.. Butte Hardware
company. This was an appeal from the
action Of the district court of silver
Bow county. The plaintiff Mahoney
has an account amounting 10 N,o9l-Si
against the Shonbar Mining company.
which he assigned TO the Butte Hard
ware company. The plaintiff claimed
the account was sold and the company
asserted that the same was simply Civ
en- II for collection. The lower court
found for the plaintifi The Butte
Hardware company appeals. The lower
court IL reversed In an opinion 10y BUCK
- h.. Itgtt plot In l.
low certain questions To he submitted
TO the jury. The cause Is remanded
with directions To grant "A new trial.
Fannie MatusevitZ VS.. the Citizens
District Messenger Il Burglar company.
This was an action brought by Fannie
Matusevitz To compel the company 10
transfer to her 1905 shares of stock.
The district court of Silver Bow county
found for the defendant. The Judgment
Is affirmed. opinion by Justice Buck.
:. l.. Holiday treasurer of Park
county. vs.. Sweet Grass county. This
action was brought by Park county To
compel Sweet Grass county To pay
81. .009. 96 interest on the bonded indebt-
edness apportioned Ia Sweet Grass
county at the adjustment meeting held
by the commissioners of the two coun-
ties after the creation of the new coun-
I
held March II. 1895. The commissioners
OF the new county did not issue their
warrants for their portion Of the in
debtedness OF the parent county until
June Z. 1895 The interest is for a Pc
riod of time between these two dates.
The Park county commissioners handed
in their claim for the above sum to the
board OF commissioners Of the new
county, who disallowed IL. The district
court was appealed to. which rendered
Judgment for Sweet Grass county. Park
county appealed. The supreme court
reversed the lower court in an opinion
by Justice Buck and holds lhat In their
opinion the warrants should have been
issued on March II, but even II they
should not have been issued until June
I. at their regular meeting. the court
says that II would he most unjust thai
Sweet Grass county should use the
money II owed from March II 10 June
I. and compel Park county to pay the
interest which 1t thereby saved.
Edward Goodkind VS.. A. Gillian.
sheriff Of jefferson county. This was an
action to recover possession of personal
property consisting of saloon fixtures
alleged tn be Of the value of 81 600 A
verdict and judgment were rendered In
favor Of the defendant by the district
court of jefferson county. The plant
in appeals from the judgment and from
the order denying "A new trial. The low
er court is reversed hy Pemherton, for
! the court. and the case rcmanded with
instructions to grant a new trial.