Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 07 November 1913
• Parties: ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. v. THOMAS.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

137 P. 380

48 Mont. 222

ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. v. THOMAS.

Supreme Court of Montana

November 7, 1913

Appeal from District Court, Missoula County; F. C. Webster, Judge.

Action by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company against Charles Thomas. From a judgment for defendant on the pleadings, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Elmer E. Hershey, of Missoula, for appellant.

Tolan & Gaines, of Missoula, for respondent.

SANNER J.

Suit by appellant to quiet title to the south half of the southwest quarter of section 25, township 12 north, range 16 west Missoula county, Mont. The complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of the land; that defendant, without right claims some estate or interest therein; and that such claim casts a cloud upon the title of plaintiff. The prayer is that the defendant be required to set forth the nature of his claim; that the same may be adjudged null and void; that the defendant be enjoined from asserting such claim; and that plaintiff have its costs and such other relief as may be meet and equitable. The defendant's answer, after admitting that he claims some title, right, and interest in the land and denying the other allegations of the complaint, contains the following "further and separate answer and defense": "This defendant avers that ever since the 20th day of March, 1901, this defendant has been and yet is in the actual, open, peaceable, uninterrupted, exclusive undisturbed, adverse, and hostile possession of the lands described in the complaint herein, holding and claiming to own the same by reason of said possession of land, exclusive of any other right as against the world." The prayer of the answer is that the plaintiff take nothing, and that the defendant have his costs. No demurrer, reply, or other pleading to the answer was ever filed, and the defendant after the time for filing reply expired, caused the default of plaintiff to be entered. Thereafter, on motion duly noticed, the court entered judgment for the defendant upon the pleadings. In this judgment it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff take nothing by its action; that defendant have his costs; and that the claim of defendant to the premises "shall be and is hereby declared to be established, and * * * that the title to and the right of possession of said above-described premises shall be and the same is hereby forever quieted in and to the defendant Charles Thomas as against the claims of plaintiff," etc. After the entry of judgment the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate and set it aside, which was denied. This appeal is from the order denying that motion.

The contentions of appellant are: (1) That the so-called "further and separate answer and defense" does not contain any matter requiring a reply; (2) that it is ineffective to support the judgment as rendered; and (3) that it is ineffective to support any judgment at all.

1. As a matter of pleading, the allegations of defendant's "further and separate answer and defense" were such as to require a reply, and, since none was filed, he was entitled to have judgment entered without other proof than the pleadings. Rev. Codes, § 6562; State v. Quantic, 37 Mont. 32, 94 P. 491; State ex rel. Montana C. Ry. Co. v. District Court, 32 Mont. 37, 79 P. 546. This conclusion is not affected by the reference to the lands in question as "the lands described in the complaint herein," instead of by legal description, since it not only could not mislead but served every substantial purpose attainable by a repetition of the description.

2. The plaintiff, asserting that the defendant claimed some right to the land which operated to cloud its title, brought him into court demanding that he set forth the nature of his claim. He did so, and, if the statement of new matter contained in the answer and admitted by failure to reply was such as to entitle him...