The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-05-27

damages and right TO recover against
the defendant; for trespasses committed
upon the property by the defendant.
and for ores extracted from IL. Here
tofore the defendant has. without right
and without the knowledge and consent
Of Farrell. or Zenor and Largely. en-
tered upon the ground i'm question. and
by means OF underground workings has
mined and extracted large quantities
OF valuable ores. containing. gold. cop
per and silver. n converted the same
to its own use. and has never account
ed or paid To The value Of the ores taxi
en-. The ores So taken from the half OF
the portion Of the Dayton In question
were Of the value Of many thousand
dollars. the exact amount being I'M
known 10 the plaintiff. The defendant
has no right or title to the ground
in controversy. and its deeds to It cast
a cloud upon the plaintiffs title. In
April. 1898, the Boston and Mcltana
Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining
company OF Montana. by its officers. as
sumed TO convey To the Boston and
Montana company of New York all its
property In the state OF Montana. The
plaintiff alleges that the deed is not the
deed Of the defendant. and was not ex-
ecuted to the New York corporation in
accordance with or I'm compliance with
the laws OF the state Of Montana. No
consideration WAS paid by the grantee
or received by the grantor, and the de-
PENDANT or it's officers had no legal right
or authority to make or execute the
deed. The sale OF the mining prop
erty mentioned therein was not author
lied by a meeting of the stockholders
of the grsntor. as required by law, nor
has II been notified by them.
The plaintiff further alleges that the
grantee named in the deed took II with
full knowledge of the contract n
agreement to convey a portion Of the
property to Zenor. Upton and Largey.
and of their right, title and interest to
II.
The defendants. as the plaintiff is in
formed and believes, are now engaged
in mining and extracting large quanti-
ties Of ores and minerals from that por-
ton of the Dayton claimed by the plain
tiff. and converting them to their own
use. thereby irreparably damaging the
premises and causing the plaintiff great
injury. The plaintiff has no means OF
ascertaining the exact quantity or VAL
ne of the ore taken, but unless the court
ant an injunction the defendants will
continue to mine the property. and the
plaintiff will be obliged to bring a num-
Der of suits to recover damages. The
plaintiff therefore asks to be adjudged
to be the owner of and entitled to the
possession of that portion of the Dayton
in question; that the deeds under which
the defendants claim be cancelled; that
the defendants be required to account
for a half Of all ores and minerals which
they extracted. and that plaintiff rave
judgment against them for the amount
thereof: that the court grant the plain
tiff an injunction against the Defend
ants restraining and enjoining them
during the pending OF the suit from
mining in the property, and that upon
the determination of the case that the
injunction be made perpetual.
Judge Lindsay approved an undertake
ing filed in the case and granted a tenn
porary restraining order.