The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-12


fraudulent conspiracy. by which Henry
A. Root. Sarah Cummings. Harriet X.
Sheffield and Henry A. Davis withdrew
their objections to the admission OF the
will to probate. On March "a. 1895. a
decree OF distribution was made in ac-
cordance with the compromise agree
ment by Judge Mediation. The COM
plainant was not a party 10 the pro-
ceed1ng. The complainant asks that
John III. Leyson be enjoined from di-
viding up the Davis estate In accord
ance with this compromise. and that
John r. Davis be required to give UP
one-half Of the share Of the heirs of
John A. Davis in the Judge Davis es-
tate to the complainant.
The defendants To this suit filed the
following demurrer to the complaint:
THAT IL appeareth by the COM
plainant's own showing by the said bill
that he is not entitled to the relief
prayed for by the bill against these
defendants.
THAT il appears by the said bill
that there are divers other persons VINO
are necessary parties to the said bill.
but who are not made parties thereto,
and in particular IL appears hat Har-
riet II. Shejeld. Henry \. Davis,
Edward A. Davis, George w. Davis.
Charles G.. Davis. Henry A. Root, Sarah
NJ. Cummings. Ellen :. Cornue. Mary
SohAEt III T1AlLdbtAN - stbb
Joshu q. Cornue and Charles III. a
are all parties to the agreement set
forth in complainant's bill. and which
he seeks to annul and avoid by his said
bill. and that each and all of the said
parties are necessary parties to said
bill. and that none of the same have
been made parties thereto.
'3-That IL appears by the said bill
that the said complainant has been
guilty of laches and unreasonable delay
in bringing his action m demanding
relief. and by reason thereof he is not
entitled to the relief prayed for in his
said bill against these defendants.
"4-That II does not appear by the
said bill that the original agreement
between the complainant n John A.
Davis and others was ever applied TO
the interest of the said Davis under
the will of Andrew j. Davis, deceased.
and there Is no written contract show
ing that the said agreement was ex-
tended to the interest of John A. Davis
under the said will. and. therefore, it
appears upon the said bill that the said
contract attempted to be set up by the
said complainant Is within the statute
| of frauds, and will not be enforced by n
court of equity, and. therefore, the
complainant is not entitled to the relief
prayed for in the said bill against these
defendants"
The emurre was argued by o. NJ.
Hall for the complainant and by Jonn
+. Forbis for A. j. Davis, and by w.
j. Scallon for John H.. Leyson, admin
istrator. The arguments were COM
pleted early in the afternoon and briefs
submitted. Judge De Haven then said
he would take the case under advise
ment and render a decision as soon as
possible.
The above suit is known on the docket
as No. 81. There Is a suit, No. 80. which
is identical except that the First Ma
tional bank OF Butte is made an addi-
tional defendant. the $50 shares of bank
stock being involved. In this suit
n exceptions to the complaint We're
withdrawn by the defendants and an
answer was filed. In the answer the
defendants deny that John A. Davis
sold or assigned to the complainant
one-half or any of his interest in the
Andrew ]. Davis estate, and allege that
IL such sale or transfer ever took place
as claimed. II was conditioned upon the
performance by the complainant of
certain acts which he has failed to per-
form. They deny that at the time of
the appointment OF John III. Leyson as
administrator he was heavily Indebted
to the defendant, Andrew j. Davis. jr..
but that he was then and since indebt-
ed to the bank only in the way that
legitimate and prosperous merchants
have accounts with banks, and was in
dependent OF and without ~fiue or
eeffect upon the appointment OF John
II. Leyson. They deny that the pro-
Ceedings have been false or fraudulent.
For affirmative answer the defendants
state hat on october 20. 1897, the com
plainant procured a writ OF error d.
recting the supreme court of Montana
to SEND up to the supreme court OF the
United States the record in the case
of ]. IL. Leyson as administrator vs..
A. j. Davis, jr.. and the First Nation
al bank. involving $50 shares OF bank
stock. That the case was argued be-
fore the supreme court of the United
States, and on April IL, 1898, a decision
was rendered sustaining the motion of
A. ]. Davis, jr., to dismiss the writ of
error. The defendants deny all man.
ner of unlawful combination and con-
federacy, conspiracy, fraud and collu-
sion.
other matters before the United
States circuit court yesterday were as
follows:
No. A., Butte & Boston company VS..
John +. Forbis. suit for petition in the
Mcnamara estate, involving the tram
way. Continued TO to-day.
In the matter of the petition OF r.
]. Watson, guardian, to intervene. Set
for hearing July ~.
No. SIS. Harriet Wood VS.. ANDREW j.
Davis. jr.. ct al. suit for distribution of
bank stock. The defendants were al
lowed 30 days from date for taking tes-
timony. and the complainants were
given 30 days from the expiration of
defendants time for taking additional
testimony.
+. A. Heinz VS.. Boston a Montana
mpa Case removed from the as
trict court. hearing on motion to re-
mand back to district court, hearing
set for July Is.
James L.arkin, an insane person. 10y
II. ]. Watson. his guardian, VS.. Boston
a Montana company. a suit to remand
Hearing on motion to remand set lor
July Is.
At IL o'clock this morning VIII o'
heard the motion To make temporary
iriunc,ion nermanent in the case of tns