Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-02-28
THE HESPERUS
LODE CLAIM
LEE MANTLE FILES AN ANSWER
TO THE SUIT OF ]. A. MURRAY
VS.. GEO. H. CASEY.
He ASKS THAT THE
SUIT BE DISMISSED.
Denies That the Property Cannot Be
Divided by Notes and Bounds
History of the Case.

In the suit brought by James A. Muir
ray against George II. Casey as the ad-
N,inistratOr of the estate of Gregory NJ.
Lyons, together with several other de-
PENDANTS. to determine the respective
interests in the Hesperus lode claim,
Lee Mantle filed separate answer to-
day and in the document asks the court
to dismiss the suit and deny the request
of the plaintiff for the appointment of
a referee. Mr.. Mantle says he owns
424th interest in the property; that on
the 3Oth of January 1883 United States
patent for the claim was issued to ST.
las F. King and John Ducie and on
November 13 of the same year they sold
part of it. 200 by 5S4 feet. to Michael
Hickey, J. c. Robinson and George w.
Stapleton, each being decided third in
terest; that on March &C. 1880, Hickey
decided his third to Gregory NJ. Lyons,
and on the 29th of the same month
Lyons decided the third to Henry L.
Haupt: that on May -. 1892, Haupt
transferred the interest to George II.
Casey. and on the 18th of December 1891
Messrs. Stapleton and Robinson executed
and delivered quit claim deed to him,
Mantle, and Charles S. Warren for all
their right, title and interest in and to
however. an undivided fourth of their en-
tire interest tOwit: a 2-12ths: that there
was intended to be conveyed by said quit
deed claim from Stapleton and Robinson
to the answering defendant and Mr.
Warren an undivided half interest in the
described portion of the claim; that af-
terwaros, on the 18th of May 1892, Messrs
Stapeton & Robinson executed and de-
livered to Casey their deed in proper
form for conveying. and thereby so con-
veyed. to Casey an their right and title
to an undivided sixth interest in their
portion of the clam and that on OctO-
Der 10, 1892. Casey decided to Mr.. Warren
a fourth interest Of all his right, which
was a ha'f interest in the portion des-
cribed; that on July 8, 1898, he the an
swering defendant. and Charles S. War
rem, then owning a 14-o4ths interest in
the said portion, decided all Of their in
terest to the Home Investment company,
and on May 26. 1900. by the consent of the
different parties claiming and owning
interests in and to the HesperuS, decree
was entered in the district court by
which the respective interests of the par
ties We're settled and confirmed: and it
was ordered and decreed that the Home
Investment and Realty company was the
owner of S-24th Of the Hesperus lode
claim: that on May 20. 1900 the Home IN
vestment and Realty company transfer
red to the answering defendant 4-24ths
interest in the premises
M. Mantle denies that the property
cannot be divided by metes and bonds
Justly and enuitaby among the parties,
but on the contrary alleges that the
premises can be divided without preju-
dice at all to the interests of the plaintiff
or any other parties to the action. He
also denies that $500 is a reasonable fee
to be allowed Murray's attorney. but $50
he says. would he sufficient