Beattie v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1888
• Citation: 17 P. 451,7 Mont. 320
• Parties: BEATTIE et al. v. PARROT SILVER & COPPER CO.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

17 P. 451

7 Mont. 320

BEATTIE et al. v. PARROT SILVER & COPPER CO.

Supreme Court of Montana

January 13, 1888

Appeal from district court, Silver Bow county; before Justice GALBRAITH.

James W. Forbis, for appellants.

Win. H. De Witt, for respondent.

McLEARY J.

This action was begun in the court of a justice of the peace of Silver Bow county, where judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and an appeal taken thence to the district court of Silver Bow county, which resulted in the same way. The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury on an agreed statement of facts, which was substantially as follows: That the plaintiffs, on the 19th day of November 1885, leased to Robert H. Aiken a certain piece of ground for a period of two years, reserving a monthly rental of $25 therefor; that Aiken held possession and paid rent for three months, and on the 18th day of February, 1886, by indorsement on the lease, assigned the same to the defendant in this case, the Parrot Silver & Copper Company. The defendant paid rent to the plaintiffs in this case, and held possession of the ground, for nine months following the assignment, and then, by indorsement on the lease, reassigned its interest to Robert H. Aiken. It was recited in the statement of facts "that, so far as the plaintiffs or defendant know, said Aiken was never cognizant of said last assignment; that said defendant had had no understanding or dealings whatever with the said Aiken concerning said last assignment; that, within the knowledge of defendant, said Aiken never accepted or knew of or consented to the last assignment, and that no consideration ever passed between defendant and said Aiken therefor; that from some time prior to said assignment to the present time defendant has had no dealings whatever with said Aiken, nor did defendant know the whereabouts of said Aiken during said time; that since the 18th day of February, 1886, said property, or the lease or the assignment thereof, has never been in the possession of said Aiken, or out of the possession of the defendant, and neither was ever delivered to said Aiken." The defendant also, at the date of the reassignment, gave notice to the plaintiffs of the reassignment, and that they had no more use for the ground, and requested the plaintiffs to look to Aiken for the rent after the current month. These are all the facts material to the consideration of this case. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal to this court.

The only question presented for our consideration, as the case appears in the record...