The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-06-15
LAWLER IS RECOGNIZED
His Claim Against Kemper Is l9
Karat.
ENTITLED TO COMMISSION
The Man Who Made the Sale and Kept
the Money Is Roasted in Mild.
Effective Way by the
Supreme Court

Special Dispatch TO the STANDARD
Helena. June 1.-THE supreme court
to-day decided the famous action
brought by William Lawlor In the dis
trict court of silver Bow county
against :. v kemper 10 obtain a share
Of the commission for the sale of the
Ground Squirrel property In Butte. The
sui IL said To be the first OF It's kind
ever brought to the attention of the SUI
preme court In this state ana will be
of Wide interest To- mining men. Law
lor and kemper entered into partner
ship in 1891 Ia deal In real estate in
Butte. Whenever a lot was disposed
~ the commission on the selling price
" as credited To the firm. They acquired
some mining property. mainly for the
sake of the space ground for town lot
purposes, Al the time they entered into
this partnership Kemper owned tract
of land known az the kemper addition
to Butte. On this addition was discoy
cred the Ground Squirrel. after the
partnership was formed. Kemper sold
this min" and certain lots in the addl-
tion In June. 1881. for 1925 900. Lawlor
demanded that Kemper credit the firm
with III. usual commission on this sale.
kempor refused In do this. but offered
To make Lawlor a present OF $3.50, say
ing 10 l.awlor at the time OF the de-
mand for the commission that the COM
mission was too much. Lawlor entered
suit and the trial ended In hts favor,
the court adopting the special findings
found by the jury. The appeal Is from
an order denying a motion for a new
trial and purports also To be from the
Judgment record failing. however. to
disclose that any Judgment was ever
rendered. Justice Buck. In rendering
the opinion for the court, said that the
evidence was sufficient To Justify the
lower court In adopting the findings OF
the jury and that no error was made
when the court refused TO grant u new
trial.
In the course Of his opinion the court
says: From a casuistic standpoint.
the possession of ability TO discharge
a Just obligation tn a fellow man should
encourage the performance Of the duty.
This ease. however. seems To illustrate
~hSnrnankiee tkrouKh weaith.>svVu-wfen
acquired In n sudden and unexpected
manner, svaricc can I've substituted for
conscience and human nature made re-
vclting at the very time when all it's
higher traits are placed In a position to
readily asesrt themselves"
Mutual Life Insurance company vs.
Peter Whine. This action was brought
by the plaintiff to recover Judgment on
"a promissory note made To Il by the
defendant for $4,000 and to foreclose
"A mortgage ON the Denver block. Hell
ena, Judgment was had In the district
court of Lewis and Clarke county. APP
pellant Whine and the Denver and Hell
cna Building company. TO which
latter corporation Whine had conveyed
the premises. and which company had
assumed and agreed to pay the prin-
cipal of the note, contended that the
mortgage and note were void for the
reason that the plaintiff insurance com
pany had not complied with certain
provisions relating to foreign corpora
tions as to filing papers and other acts
necessary for foreign corporations 10
do before they would be entitled to do
business In this state and that there
fore II could not enforce payment Of
the note. The court. by Justice Hunt
IN an opinion elahurately treating all
the different questions raised by coun-
sci. afllrms the Judgment of the lower
court and substantially holds that the
plaintiff. having availed itself OF the
curative statute passed in 1885 It's acts
and contracts are valid
btncr actiOns disposed OF were The
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance com
pany VS.. Peter Whine et al Action
brought To recover against Whine and
others for g. 500 due on a note. The
questions involved In this case are ths
same as In the case above Judgment
affirmed
Mary Edwards VS.. W. T. Spalding
! From Lewis and Clarke county. Thi.
was an action To recover rents amount
| ing to t6i3.50. The district court found
for the plalntir. The defendant ap-
peal.d. Judge pcmberton. for tn,
court. afiirms the lower court.
q. \. Parrott vs. Moraze 1T al Thi,
was an appeal from the action ot Tho
district court of Fergus county In re-
taxing costs. The suit was originally
commenced in a court OF "A justice o
the peace. There the plalntiff recov
cred judgment for ~. The defendant,
4 appealed to IN. district court. Ther,
/ they succeeded in reducing the judg
I ment Ia s3j. Tn district court taxed
/ Zee ~ So against the plaintiff. Tn,
/ lower court is sustained In an opinion
q al