The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-11
STATE SUPREME COURT
Three Important Decisions Were
Handed Down.
CASE OF CHARLES QUINN
The District Court of Silver Bow Is
in the Main Sustained - No
Error to Have Admitted
Certain Testimony.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena, April 10.-Three decisions
We're handed down by the supreme
court to-day. The court issued the writ
of mandate applied for by Bernard
Shanahan of Butte to compel Judge
Lindsay to hear his appeal from a de
fault Judgment obtained against him
in Justices court by H c. Sladler.
Judge Lindsay declined to hear Shana-
hans appeal on the ground there could
be no appeal from a default Judgment
in Justices court. Shanahan appeal
ed to the supreme court for writ of
mandate. This the supreme court, in
an opinion by the chief justice. orders
issued, as an appeal under the circum
stances does lie.
The case of Charles Quinn, admins
traitor, VS.. Bernard Quinn, another ap-
peal from Silver Bow, was decided in
an opinion by Justice Hunt. This was
a suit for a dissolution of a partner
ship, commenced in the district court
of Silver Bow county, Judge w. Q.
Sper presiding. The partnership had
been in existence between the plaintiff
and the defendant, who We're brothers,
since 1854 and lasted until the spring
of 1894. Then a disa greement arose be-
tween them. and Charles began this
suit. The two brothers had accumulat-
ed considerable property, great por
ton of which consisted of real estate
in Butte; they also had cattle and min
ing property. The matter was referred
to John Lindsay, as referee. His find
ings We're chiefly in favor of Bernard;
the court adopted the findings and
Charles appealed to the supreme court.
He died before the case came up before
the court of last resort The supreme
court aff1rms the district court. hold
ing that the contention of appellants
counsel that the evidence did not sup
port that finding which stated that the
brothers had acquired interests in com
mon by the joint labors in real and
personal property is not tenabe The
district court had instructed the ref
cree not to rule upon any objections Of
fered to testimony taken at the hearing.
His refusal to pass upon certain objec-
tons, therefore, is assigned as error by
appellant. The court holds that no err
ror could have been committed by ad-
hitting the testimony complaine of,
but the court also says that it consid-
ers it the better practice for the ref
cree to pass upon objections as they
are made, in order to give the Directing
party the benefit of exceptions.
The other case decided was entitled l.
NJ Rockefeller. plaintiff and respond
ent, VS.. D. n. Bollinger ct al, defend
ant and appellant, an action conamenc-
ed in the district court of Deer Lodge
county tosforeclose the mortgage upon
lot 2, block III. in Anaconda, better
known as the Cottage Home proper
ty, made by s. d. Root and G.. G. Vine
yard to secure payment of their note of
$4,000 made to Rockefeller in Septem-
Der, 1892. The case was tried in the
lower court before Judge Brantly and
verdict returned for the plaintiff. Dur
ing the hearing of the appeal, the chief
Justice being disqualified, the case was
heard by Justices Hunt and Pigott.
They affirm the judgment of the lower
cCur.