The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-25
state SUPREME COURT
Writ of Mandate Issued in the
Printing Litigation.
MUST SHOW CAUSE MAY 9
Case of G. E. Block VS.. Jerry Griffith
Appealed From Silver Bow, Dis
missed = Judgment in the
Israel Case Affirmed.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

|
Helena, April 24.-Three decisions
were handed down by the supreme court
to-day, one appeal dismissed and a
writ of mandate issued. The mandate
was issued in the state printing con-
| tract litigation, the court ordering the
| governor and the state treasurer to
show cause May 9 why they vetoed
the recent contract made between the
State Publishing company and the state
board of examiners for the state print
| ing for the year 1899.
| The case dismissed was that of C. E.
Block VS.. Jerry Griffith, appealed from
Silver Bow. One of the cases decided
| was the outgrowth of the Israel failure
of Helena in the latter part Of 1895. 1t
was entitled Richardson Roberts Dry
Goods company ct al. VS.. e. l. Goodkind,
| assignee. Israel purchased a large sSocK
of goods from the plaintiff, a whole
sale firm doing business at st. Joseph,
Mo-, in May, 1895. The goods were de-
livered in August and were to be paid
for in SO and 80 days. Shortly after
receipt of the goods Israel failed. The
complaint in the case stated that Israel
made fraudulent statements to the
Bradstreet agency at Helena in Febru-
airy, 1895, in regard to his financial af-
fairs. stating that his net assets were
SIPS, 700 whereas he was virtually in
solvent; that on the strength of such
statement the plaintiff sold him the
goods on credit and therefore the sale
had been rescinded The return of the
| goods was asked. Goodkind was the as
signee of Israel. The case was tried be-
fore Judge Smith with a jury. The
jury found that Israel had knowing
~ made fraudulent statements for the
purpose of obtaining credit and render
ed general verdict for the plaintiff.
The defendant appealed. The supreme
court in per curtain opinion holds that
the Judgment and verdict were right
under the circumstances and affirms the
Judgment
The state ex rel John P. Reins ct al.
vs. the district court of the Sixth jul
dicial district, Carbon county, was a
proceeding to review judgment of the
lower court in a case against Reins
and others for $3,456.47 The action
arose out of the suit of Beck VS.. O'Con-
nor & Cooper, decided the latter part of
last year by the supreme court. The
REALTORS, Reins and others, went on the
stay bond of Beck when he took his
case to the higher court, whereby they
promised to pay the judgment against
Beck in case the appeal should be af-
firmed or dismissed, if Beck failed to do
so. Nearly a year before the supreme
court filed it's opinion in the Beck case.
execution on the judgment appealed
from had been issued by an order of
the district court at the instance of re-
spondents, Cooper and O'Connor, and
the property of Beck sold. The sale did
not bring enough to satisfy the judg
ment and the sureties were proceeded
against to make up the deficiency.
Hence this action.
VJ,l,,
Justice Hunt annuls the action of the
district court in entering Judgment
against the sureties, and holds that the
act of Cooper and OConnor in levying
the execution against the property of
the judgment debtor and selling it de-
prived the bondsmen of the considera-
ton for which they made the bond,
namely, the stay of execution, and that
therefore the bond became null and
void.
W. H. Babcock VS.. White Caldwell
This was an action to recover dam
ages for the alleged conversion of a
saw mill and appliances. The defend
ant was sheriff of Gallatin county, and
as such he sold the property on account
of which the suit was brought. A YER
dict and Judgment were rendered for
the plaintiff. The defendant appealed
from the judgment and an order refus-
ing him a new trial. Caldwell seized
and sold the property under a writ of
execution against another than the
plaintiff. The first error assigned by
defendant and treated by the supreme
court was that the complaint failed to
state cause of action in that it did
| not aver that the plaintiff was the
owner and entitled to possession Of The
property at the time the action was
commenced. The court holds this to
have been unnecessary. Attention of
attorneys is again called to the nom
compliance with the courts rules in re-
spect to preparing of briefs. "Substan-
tial compliance with the rules of this
court is a condition precedent to the
determination of an appeal upon its
merits.
Judgment affirmed