Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-03-24
MOTION TO QUASI.
ANOTHER MOVE IN THE b. & NJ. RE
Ownership CASE.

A motion was filed yesterday in the
supreme court by Judge Pemberton ana
]. 3. McClernan. attorneys for Judge
Clancy and r. r. Kinds. to quash the
alternative writ of prohibition and TO
dismiss the case of the Boston & Mon
tana, organized under the laws OF Mon
tana VS.. Judge Clancy and 7. X. Hlnds.
Thu motion will be argued tomorrow, ana
Clinton c. Clark, clerk of ne dlslrlct
court of Silver Bow. has been clted 10
appear before the court with the records
: and papers in the case of Forester d
MacGinniss VS.. the Boston & Montana.
The substance of the reasons assigned
why the writ should be Quashed are De
cause the order appointing Kinds re-
ceiver for the Boston 4 Montana has
never been set aside, modified or va
waited. The petition for the writ failed
to show tina the judge or the receiver
! had done anything in excess of the juris-
! diction of the court. The court and the
receiver are legally in possession of all
business affairs and property, but for
the writ of prohibition the court and De
PENDANT Kinds would ave full jurisdlc-
ton Of the property; it will be necessary
to take evidence to determine whether
the proceedings in the recelvership mat
ter should be stayed, because the supreme
court has no original jurisdiction, or any
Jurisdiction, to hear evidence whether the
~reCeivership should be stayed or whether
d LUZ III >, di oI1' io' o,Nii
made from the New York to the Montana
corporation. or whether the New York
company has fully or at all accounted to
the Montana company or delivered over
all of the property; because the petition
for the writ shows hat the affairs of the
New York company and the Montana
company are the same, and the account
ing claimed to have been made was
made by such persons to themselves,
land said persons stand in the position
before this court of admitted wrong
doors with reference to property of the
petitioners" because it appears that no
accounting has been made by the New
York company concerning the property
and business of the petitioner. there only
having been an accounting by it's officers
to themselves for the net proceeds of the
business and the mining operations car
ried on by the New York company with
petitioners mining property; because the
district court has full and complete juris-
diction to require said accounting; be-
cause the district court has original and
executive jurisdiction to hear and deter
mine all matters presented with refer
cnce TO a stay of proceedings, accounting
and re~cOnVeyance of the property and the
discharge Of the receiver and to require
said receiver before being discharged to
render a full account of all his proceed
ings and to allow his compensation, be-
cause any accounting that could be made
by the New York company could only be
made to the district court, and the re-
ceiver and could not be made to the
plaintiff; because it appears that the New
York company was and is enjoined by an
order of the district court from MAX
ing any conveyance or delivery Of any of
the property or business for which the
receiver was appointed to any one but
the receiver; because it appears that
Kinds is entitled to the possession of the
business and property, and that plaintiff
has refused to deliver the possession to
him and because no accounting has been
made to him by the New York company
and because he has not been permitted
to examine into the affairs and business
for which he is receiver and report the
same to the district court.