The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-05-13
FORTY SUITS PENDING
Between the Boston d Montana
and the n. O. p. Co.
ONE MORE SUIT FILED
It Involves the Title to Part Of the Sulli-
van Lode Claim Recently Sold to
the N. O.. p. Company by the
Anaconda Company.

Something over 40 suits are now pend
ing between the Boston and Montana
company and the NJ. 0. p. company,
and another wa filed yesterday in the
United States circuit court, in which,
while the NJ. o. p. company IL not de-
PENDANT, it Is materially interested. in
asmuch as the suit involves title to part
Of the Sullivan lod claim, recently sold
to the NJ. o. p. company by the Ana
conda company. The title OF the suit
is the b. & NJ. company VS.. Mary II.
Terrell. Margaret H. Anderson. Eliza
beth Hobart. Edward Il. Bowen, o
H. Bower. Elizabeth Hobart, guardian
of Mabel G.. Bower, q minor, and T. T.
Baker, administrator OF the will Of
Mary Bower, deceased, defendants.
The bill recites that your orator ID now.
and has been for the last 10 years, the
owner of those portions of the Sullivan
quartz lode mining claim which were
in conflict with Little Ida quartz lode
mining claim. and which were decided
to the party of the first part by
Mathew Sullivan on November %, 1885.
Also Of a parcel of ground COM
prising an area In both pieces Of nine
ty-nine one hundredths of an acre, and
being the conflict between the said Lit
tie Ida lod and the lot No. 239.
Your orator further shows that the
premises herein last described are min
ing premises, and on and prior to No
vember %, 1885, the said premises were
claimed by Mathew Sullivan as q por-
ton Of the Sullivan quartz lode mining
claim, which was afterwards surveyed
n patented from the United States,
and Is officially known as lot No. 239,
TIP. 3, N. r. z w. and that John Dun
49, - .-.- 1880
lode mining claim called the Little Ida,
which was officially surveyed by the
United States and designated as lot
No. 126, Tp. 3, N. r. Z w.
Your orator further shows thai on
November %, 1885. the controversy be-
tween these persons as to the title to
said premises was compromised, the
said Mathew Sullivan agreeing to deed
to the claimats Of the Little Ida the
said portion OF the said ground In con-
troversy. and did on that day deliver
to the Little Ida claimants, with the
exception of jeremiah Griffths, a deed
conveying these premises, which was
recorded January il. 1886. But in maxi
ing the deed from said Mathew Sulli-
van, instead of the name of jeremiah
Grifiths being inserted as one of the
grantees, the name of Edward NJ. Bow
en- was. by the consent of Jeremiah
Griffiths, and at his request. inserted as
- Tia N"t u "
this one-ninth interest passed from said
Jeremiah Grifiiths to the grantor in
said conveyance. and no consideration
passed from said Edward M. Bowen.
That at the time Edward NJ. Bowen had
no interest in the premises, but the in
terest so conveyed belonged to Jere-
miah -Griffiths. who instead of receiv-
ing the conveyance to himself. caused
the same to be conveyed to Edward NJ.
Bowen in trust for him. and the only
title which Bowen received, or his sue
cessors now have. was received only
in trust for jeremiah Grifiiths, and that
by said conveyance, while the legal
title was conveyed to said Bowen, the
equitable title remained in Jeremiah
Griffiths. And thereafter the said Jer-
emiah Griffiths duly conveyed all his
equitable title In and to said premises
n the whole thereof to this plaintiff.
And your orator further shows that
on March 81, 1888, John Dunstan ct al.
executed to Thomas Couch a deed con
veying the said premises; n on No
vember %. 1888, Thomas Couch executed
a deed conveying to the B. & NJ. COM
pany the same premises. On April s,
1898, the r. & NJ. company delivered to
the plaintiff the same premises.
Your orator further shows that when
the deed from job Dunstan ct al. was
executed the said r. NJ. Bowen omit
ted to Join in said deed as a grantor,
n to convey to said Thomas Couch
the interest in said premises, which he
held in trust for jeremiah Grifiths.
That IL was then and there the inten-
tion and desire Of Jeremiah Grifiths
that said Edward NJ. Bowen shoul
convey said interest to Thomas Couch,
for the reason that said jeremiah Grit
fiths had sold his one-ninth interest to
said Thomas Couch. 1t was simply
by error and omission that E. NJ. Bow
en- neglected to convey said interest to
Thomas Couch. That upon said con
veyance Thomas Couch paid a consid-
GRAFTON for the whole of said premises,
n not for e~ight-ninths Of 1t. and that
jeremiah Grih1ths received his aliquot
part as a consideration for his share
In the premises.
THAT on May 30, 1890, Edward NJ.
Bowen died. leaving as heirs the defend
ants. That in the decree of distri-
button the said one-ninth interest in the
Sullivan was not mentioned as distrib-
uted. That thereafter Mary Bowen.
the widow, died. m T. T. Baker was
appointed As administrator of h es-
tate.
And your orator further shows tina
for the defendants to further retain the
legal title in and to the said premises
is contrary to equity and good con-
science.
May it therefore please your honors
to grant until your orator q writ Of
subpoena to be directed to h defend
ants, thereby commanding them. and
each of them, at a certain time and un-
der a certain penalty. there to be lin
tied. personally to appear before this
honorable court and then and there
full. true, direct n perfect answer
make to all and singular the premises.
n to stand to. perform and abide by
such order. direction or decree as may
be made against them in the premises
as shall seem meet and agreeable to
equity and good conscience"