Hartman v. Smith
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Gallatin County. In this case a written statement of the facts was agreed upon by the attorneys for the parties. This statement had the effect of a special verdict or finding of the facts. Sec. 270, div. 1, Rev. Stats. Mont.. If the judgment is inconsistent with said statement it should be reversed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Gallatin County. In this case a written statement of the facts was agreed upon by the attorneys for the parties. This statement had the effect of a special verdict or finding of the facts. Sec. 270, div. 1, Rev. Stats. Mont.. If the judgment is inconsistent with said statement it should be reversed. Chumasero v. Vial, 3 Mont. 376; Lar gey vSedman, 3 Mont. 472. The following ruling of Acting Commissioner Stocksleger, made September 2,1886, and reported in 13 Copp’s Land Owner, 159, is directly in point: “The language of the statute, section 2337, Revised Statutes of…
1Opinion of the CourtGalbraith, J.
This is an action to determine an adverse claim to certain real estate. The property in controversy is claimed by the appellant as a town site, and by the respondents as non-mineral land, not contiguous to a vein or lode, and claimed to be used for the mining purposes of such vein or lode, and included in the application of the patent therefor, under section 2337, Revised Statutes of the United States.
The facts in the case are as follows: Iu April, 1882, the defendants, and those under whom they claim, located on the public domain a mill site of five acres, as appurtenant to a certain quartz…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Emerson v. Eldorado Ditch Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1896
- Murray v. HauserMontana Supreme Court · 1898
- Jenkins v. NewmanMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Silver Peak Mines v. ValcaldaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
- Valcalda v. Silver Peak MinesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898