The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-01
THE WRIT is DISSOLVED
Hearing in the B. & M. Receiver
ship Case.
CLANCY HAS JURISDICTION
He Has Been Ordered to Appear Before
the Supreme Court to Show Cause
Why He Did Not Obey the
Courts Order.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Helena, March 31.--The Boston &,
Montana receivership matter occupied
the attention of the supreme court
again to-day, the court disposing of
one of the pending writs and making
an order in another. Last Saturday the
court listened to arguments upon the
motion made by counsel for Judge
Clancy to dissolve the writ of prohibi-
tion that was secured by the Boston &
Montana to prevent the judge or Re-
ceiver Kinds from carrying on further
proceedings in the known possession of
the property. The court. announced
that decision would be rendered some
time this week.
AS soon as court met this morning
the chief justice announced the result
of the courts deliberations in an opn-
ion by the whole court After briefly
reviewing the recent phases of the liti-
cation that has been before the su-
preme court the court holds in effect
that it is convinced that it has no au-
thcrity to interfere with the proceed
ings Of the lower court by issuing the
lower court had the necessary jurisdic-
t!oA. In concluding its reasons for
sustaining the motion to quash the
writ, the court says:
''All matters connected with the uues-
ton of jurisdiction of the district court
in the Forester case occurring prior to
Feb. 23, 1899, have therefore been finally
settled and determined by this court
The law has been declared after a most
careful and painstaking investigation
and the precedents thus established
cannot be disturbed. Counsel insist,
however, that the alleged reconveyance
by the New York company to the re-
lator of the property which was con-
veyed to the former by the latter on
April 6, 1898, and the accounting by
the former to this, latter, all Of which
have occurred Since Feb. 23 OF this
year, have dispensed with the necessity
of putting the receiver in charge of the
property; and that the refusal of the
district court to hear the various mo-
tions made therein in the matter of the
receivership, warrants this court in
saying that the district court is with
out or in excess of it's jurisdiction. If,
in view of recent events, the district
court puts the receiver in charge Of this
property, this action on it's part. coun-
sci say, will be an excessive and unau-
thorized application of judicial force.
lnlS court cannot III pEoceeulIlS Oh
this character assume as true, and so
declare, the allegation in the affidavit
that the conveyance from the New
York company to the Montana COM
pany, the relatOr, is good and sutf1
cient conveyance. and that the account
ing rendered by the former to the lat
ter is a full and complete accounting.
Nor can we venture to say that the
district court has lost jurisdiction of
the matters touching the receivership
by reason of that fact that it has re-
fused to stay the hand of the receiver
until the various motions have been
disposed of, and has postponed the
hearing of these motions from time to
time.
THAT the court properly has jurisdic-
ton of all the matters involved in these
motions. They We're properly made
there. 1t is a part of its duty to hear
and dispose of them as speedily as it
may. Whatever wrong may have been
done the relator by the action of the
court in these matters, this appllca-
ton does not invoke the proper remedy
for it. We cannot at one time say that
the lower court has jurisdiction and at
another time say it has not because
the various matters touching the re-
ceiVershp have not been heard and
disposed of as speedily as counsel for
relator seem to think they should.
Litigants have a right to insist that
vital questions affecting their interests,
great and small should be speedily
heard and determined, but failure on
the part of the court in this regard
does not deprive it of jurisdiction.
'If the court refuses to act, or deters
the hearing needlessly, it can be com
PEELED to perform its duty, but such
non-action does not warrant this court
in performing the duty which the lower
{ IN n
great interests involved in this litiga-
tion, and the earnestness of counsel for
rela tor in urging this court to interfere,
we have taken the pains to go into facts
presented here very carefully for the
third time Careful consideration OF eV-
erything presented leaves us with the
conviction that we have no authority
to interfere with the proceedings OF the
lower court by issuing the writ. The
motion to set aside and vacate the pre-
liminary order will therefore be sus-
tanned, and the application dismissed.
1t is so ordered.
AS soon as the court had announced
it's decision William ScallOn. w. w.
Dixon and Ransom Cooper of counsel
for the Boston & Montana asked that
the remittitur be held few days pend
ing disposition of the mandamus re-
Gently procured from the supreme court
to compel Judge Clancy to hear the va
rious motions pending before him. The
court declined to grant the request, and
the marshal of the supreme court de-
parted for Butte this afternoon with
the document
When the supreme court recently is
sued an alternative writ of mandamus
to compel Judge Clancy to hear the
motions of the Boston & Montana, for
the DISCHARGE of the receiver, to stay
the proceedings and to increase the
bond of the receiver, the higher court
ordered that such motions should be
heard on or before March so, or that
cause should be shown here March 81
why such motions had not been heard
As the Butte judge has continued the
hearing of the motions again until April
:, and this was the day for him to show
cause why he had not heard them.
Governor Smith of counsel for Clancy
and the NJ. o. P, presented motion to
set aside and Vacate the writ for these
reasons because the court did rot
have jurisdiction; because the affidavit
filed by the B. & NJ. attorneys failed to
elnv, that The nudge had failed IN hear