In re Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1903
• Citation: 72 P. 1103,28 Mont. 221
• Parties: In re BOSTON & M. CONSOL. COPPER & SILVER MIN. CO.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

72 P. 1103

28 Mont. 221

In re BOSTON & M. CONSOL. COPPER & SILVER MIN. CO.

Supreme Court of Montana

May 18, 1903

Application by the Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Company for the appointment of a district judge to temporarily hold court in the Second judicial district, and perform the duties of district judge for such district, in an action by John MacGinniss against the applicant and others. Proceedings dismissed.

Forbis & Evans, A. J. Shores, and C. F. Kelley, for petitioner.

McHatton & Cotter and Chas. R. Leonard, for respondent.

HOLLOWAY, J.

This is an original application to this court for an order designating a judge of some district, other than the Second judicial district, to try and determine a certain cause pending therein, entitled "John MacGinniss, Plaintiff, v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Company, A. S. Bigelow, W. J. Ladd, Ed. C. Perkins, Edwin S. Grew, Joseph S. Bigelow, Leonard Lewisohn, Frank Klepetko, Amalgamated Copper Company, William Scallon, and C. S. Batterman, Defendants." The proceeding is taken under the provisions of an act of the Eighth Legislative Assembly designated as "Substitute for Senate Bill No. 71" (unpublished). Upon the filing of the petition this court on its own motion ordered the plaintiff in the court below and the district judge in whose department the above cause is pending to appear and show cause, if any they had, why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted. Upon return of that order counsel for the plaintiff and for the district judge appeared and filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings, upon the ground that the act entitled "Substitute for Senate Bill No. 71" is unconstitutional, and that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition or to grant the relief prayed for. The facts in this case and the principle involved are identical with those in No. 1,927, entitled "Ryan v. Weston," 72 P. 512, this day decided by this court; and upon the authority of that case the motion to dismiss is sustained, and the proceeding dismissed. Dismissed.

BRANTLY, C.J., and MILBURN, J., concur.