Basey v. Gallagher
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana. The ease was thus: The organic act of the Territory just named recognizes the distinction between the jurisdictions of law and equity, but requires that proceedings in both be in the same court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana. The ease was thus: The organic act of the Territory just named recognizes the distinction between the jurisdictions of law and equity, but requires that proceedings in both be in the same court. By a statute of the Territory regulating proceedings in such cases in courts of the Territory, only one form of civil action is allowed; and it is there enacted that “issues of fact shall bé tried by a jury, unless a jury is waived or a reference ordered,” in a way which the statute provides. In this state of the law Gallagher and others filed…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Field
The record does not disclose what disposition was made of the demurrer to the complaint, but as an answer was subsequently filed upon which the parties proceeded to a hearing, the presumption is that it was .abandoned.
By the organic act of the Territory, the District Courts are invented with chancery and common-law jurisdiction. The Javo jurisdictions are exercisfed by the same court, and,, under-the legislation of the Territory, the modes of procedure up to the trial or hearing are the same whether a legal'or equitable remedy is sought. The suitor, whatever relief he may ask, is required to…
2Cited by137 opinions
- California v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Quinby v. ConlanSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Wyoming v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
132 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.