JOHNSON v JARRETT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12804 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1976 HAROLD J. JOHNSON and MAVIS M. JOHNSON, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs - T O A JARRETT and SIGRID JARRETT, HMS Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: District Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Yardley and Yardley , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana J a c k Yardley a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana H o l t e r and Heath, Bozeman, Montana Robert M. H o l t e r argued, Bozernan, Montana For Respondents : J o n e s , Olson, and C h r i s t e n s e n , B i l l i n g s , Montana Gerald D. C h r i s t e n s e n a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana William V. Moore a p p e a r e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: F e b r u a r y , 2 , 1976 Decided : ii$dak 2 $ F i l e d :'\"#A@ % C, J$jJs f':m Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s a p p e a l i s from a judgment i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County, d e t e r m i n i n g t h e boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y . P l a i n t i f f s Johnson f i l e d a n a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e t o a b o u t 500 acres o f l a n d l o c a t e d i n S e c t i o n 1 5 , Township 1 S o u t h , Range 1 2 E a s t , M.P.M., P a r k County, Montana. This appeal arises o v e r a c o n t r o v e r s y a s t o t h e boundary l i n e s e p a r a t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y of p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s i n L o t 5 o f S e c t i o n 1 5 . I n 1899, a l l of L o t 5 , S e c t i o n 1 5 , w a s owned by Timothy Murray. On J u l y 8 , 1899, he conveyed by deed t o Susan A. Mendenhall: " A l l t h a t p o r t i o n o f Lot F i v e ( 5 ) which i s e a s t o f t h e wagon r o a d l e a d i n g from t h e S p r i n g d a l e S t a t i o n on t h e N o r t h e r n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d n o r t h t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s and n o r t h of t h e t r a c k of s a i d r a i l r o a d a s now l o c a t e d . " Defendants J a r r e t t a r e t h e s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o Susan A. Mend e n h a l l , and t h e l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1899 deed. On August 11, 1903, Timothy Murray deeded t o James A . Murray : " A l l t h a t p o r t i o n o f Lot F i v e ( 5 ) l y i n g w e s t of t h e wagon r o a d from r a i l r o a d t o H u n t e r s Hot Springs. " P l a i n t i f f s Johnson a r e s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o James A. Murray and t h e l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1903 d e e d . The i s s u e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n b o t h d e e d s a s forming t h e boundary t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s ' p o r t i o n o f L o t 5. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h e "wagon r o a d " i s t h a t c e r t a i n wagon r o a d r u n n i n g from S p r i n g d a l e S t a t i o n t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s a s shown on a United S t a t e s Government Survey o f J u l y , 1886. road r a n i n a roughly e a s t - This w e s t d i r e c t i o n through Lot 5 ending a t a f e r r y a c r o s s t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . Defendants a l l e g e t h e "wagon r o a d " i s t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d r u n n i n g from t h e p r e s e n t S p r i n g d a l e t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s . (Mendenhall). T h i s r o a d r u n s n o r t h and s o u t h t h r o u g h L o t 5 t o a b r i d g e a c r o s s t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . A t t h e p r e s e n t t h e r e i s no p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e of t h e wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1886 s u r v e y . Defendants i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e o f t h e move o f t h e S p r i n g d a l e S t a t i o n a p p r o x i m a t e l y two m i l e s e a s t on t h e Great N o r t h e r n L i n e a t some t i m e between t h e y e a r 1886 and 1898, w i t h t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d b e i n g b u i l t a b o u t t h e same t i m e . Defendants a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d i s bounded on t h e e a s t by f e n c e s which have e x i s t e d i n t h e i r p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n f o r a t l e a s t 35 y e a r s . P l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s a g r e e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have n e v e r used any of Lot 5 e a s t of t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d , n o r d i d d e f e n d a n t s u s e any o f t h e l a n d w e s t o f t h e r o a d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , found i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m and e n t e r e d judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . A l l post-judgment m o t i o n s o f d e f e n d a n t s w e r e d e n i e d , and they appealed t o t h i s Court. brief A t r o u g h l y t h e same t i m e a s d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d t h e i r r e p l y / with t h i s Court, one of defendants discovered c e r t a i n o f f i c i a l r e c o r d s of P a r k County and moved t h i s C o u r t f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new e v i d e n c e o r removal t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Hearing w a s h e l d on t h i s motion J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1975. On J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1975, t h i s C o u r t , i n a p e r c u r i a m o r d e r , remanded t h e c a u s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o p e r m i t def e n d a n t s t o f i l e a motion f o r a new t r i a l upon t h e ground o f newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . Rehearing w a s h e l d on March 1 7 , 1975, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County, w i t h o u t a j u r y . Defendants i n t r o d u c e d e v i - d e n c e o f a c o u n t y r o a d from S p r i n g d a l e t o Mendenhall i n 1890, t o prove t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e p r e s e n t county road a t i t s p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n and e q u a t i n g i t t o t h e wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n t h e deeds. P l a i n t i f f s challenged t h i s evidence with testimony o f a l i c e n s e d l a n d s u r v e y o r and t h e 1900 P a r k County assessment r o l l s f o r L o t 5. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t awarded judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s and defendants appeal. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t a r e : 1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e 1886 wagon r o a d was t h e same "wagon r o a d " a s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1899 and 1903 d e e d s , t h e r e b y f a i l i n g t o determine t h a t defendants own a l l of Lot 5 east o f t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d ? 2. Did p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t a c q u i e s c e i n and a c c e p t t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d a s t h e boundary l i n e between t h e r e s p e c t i v e p o r t i o n s o f L o t 5? 3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h e p r o p e r l o c a t i o n o f t h e "wagon r o a d " t h r o u g h L o t 5 i n t h e y e a r s 1899 and 1903 was a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e P a r k County o f f i c i a l r e c o r d s d i s c o v e r e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e f i r s t judgment and i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e second h e a r i n g ? 4. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err when i t f a i l e d t o f i n d p l a i n t i f f s knew, p r i o r t o t h e i n i t i a l h e a r i n g , of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e second h e a r i n g , t h u s f a i l i n g t o d i s c l o s e t o t h e c o u r t t h e e x i s t e n c e of such records; t h a t such f a i l u r e w a s m a t e r i a l , m i s l e d t h e c o u r t , was f a l s e and c o n s t i t u t e d a f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t , and t h a t b e c a u s e of s u c h f a i l u r e , t h e c o u r t and d e f e n d a n t s w e r e p u t t o much t r o u b l e and expense? 5. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err when it a l l o w e d c e r t a i n costs t o plaintiffs? I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and judgments o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d i f s u p p o r t e d and j u s t i f i e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . F a u t s c h v . F a u t s c h , 166 Mont. 98, 530 P.2d 1172, 32 S t . R e p . 70; R i c h a r d s o n v . Howard M o t o r s , I n c . , 163 Mont. 347, 516 P.2d 1153; Harnung v . E s t a t e o f L a g e r q u i s t , 155 Mont. 412, 473 P.2d 541; Anderson v . Mace, 99 Mont. 421, 45 P.2d 771; Anaconda N a t i o n a l Bank v . J o h n s o n , 75 Mont. 401, 244 P. 1 4 1 . The e v i d e n c e must b e viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the prevailing party. 1 2 5 8 , 32 St.Rep. Bos v . D o l a j a k , . , 534 P.2d 438; H o l e n s t e i n v . Andrews, 166 Mont. 60, 530 P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep. 4 1 ; Rogers v . H i l g e r C h e v r o l e t Co., Mont. 1, 465 P.2d 834; S t r o n g v . W i l l i a m s , P.2d Mont 154 Mont. 155 65, 460 90; B a t c h o f f v . C r a n e y , 1 1 9 Mont. 1 5 7 , 172 P.2d 308. B e f o r e examining t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t r i a l , w e t a k e cognizance of t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e s f o r construing land descriptions. D e f e n d a n t s r e f e r u s t o s e c t i o n 93-2201-4, R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s , i n t e r a l i a : "The f o l l o w i n g a r e t h e r u l e s f o r c o n s t r u i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i v e p a r t o f a conveyance o f r e a l p r o p e r t y , when t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s d o u b t f u l and t h e r e a r e no o t h e r s u f f i c i e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o d e t e r m i n e i t : " 2 . When permanent and v i s i b l e . o r a s c e r t a i n e d b o u n d a r i e s o r monuments a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e measurement, e i t h e r o f l i n e s , a n g l e s , o r s u r f a c e s , t h e b o u n d a r i e s o r monuments a r e p a r a mount. " I n Buckley v . L a i r d , 1 5 8 Mont. 483, 491, 493 P.2d 1 0 7 0 , t h i s C o u r t q u o t e d t h i s l a n g u a g e from 1 2 Am J u r 2d, B o u n d a r i e s , " ' I n surveying a t r a c t of land according t o a former p l a t o r survey, t h e s u r v e y o r ' s o n l y d u t y i s t o r e l o c a t e , upon t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e o b t a i n a b l e , t h e c o u r s e s and l i n e s a t t h e s a m e p l a c e where o r i g i n a l l y l o c a t e d by t h e f i r s t s u r v e y o r on t h e ground. I n making t h e r e s u r v e y , he h a s t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h e f i e l d n o t e s of t h e o r i g i n a l survey. The o b j e c t o f a r e s u r v e y i s t o f u r n i s h p r o o f o f t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e l o s t l i n e s o r monuments, n o t t o d i s p u t e t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of o r t o c o n t r o l t h e o r i g i n a l survey. ' " T h i s i s what t h e s u r v e y o r i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was a s k e d t o d o and which h e d i d . H e s u r v e y e d t h e o l d wagon r o a d from S p r i n g d a l e S t a t i o n t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s , u s i n g t h e f i e l d n o t e s and s u r v e y map o f t h e 1886 U n i t e d S t a t e s Government Survey. H e a l s o certi- f i e d no o t h e r r o a d , w h e t h e r o r n o t d e s i g n a t e d a s a wagon r o a d , c r o s s e d L o t 5 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e 1886 s u r v e y . Defendants a l l e g e t h e surveyor ignored t h e c l e a r , e x i s t i n g monuments, i . e . t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d , when s u r v e y i n g f o r t h e wagon r o a d d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e 1899 and 1903 d e e d s . W e disagree, t h e s u r v e y o r was a s k e d t o f i n d t h e wagon r o a d , and found t h e o n l y wagon r o a d s o d e s i g n a t e d c r o s s i n g L o t 5 from 1886 t o t h e p r e s e n t day. While it i s t r u e t h e 1886 wagon r o a d c r o s s e s L o t 5 i n a g e n e r a l l y e a s t - w e s t d i r e c t i o n and t h e p o r t i o n s o f L o t 5 p l a i n t i f f s w i s h d e s i g n a t e d a s e a s t and w e s t o f t h e wagon r o a d a r e n o t t r u e e a s t o r w e s t , o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e two h e a r i n g s t e n d t o c o n f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment f o r plaintiffs. The 1900 P a r k County a s s e s s m e n t r e c o r d s f o r L o t 5 i n d i c a t e 27.36 a c r e s w e s t o f t h e wagon r o a d and 29.00 a c r e s e a s t o f t h e road. Contemporary P a r k County a s s e s s m e n t r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e p l a i n t i f f s own 24.50 a c r e s i n L o t 5 , b u t t h e r e c o r d shows o n l y 3.4 acres o f L o t 5 l i e s w e s t o f t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d . Unless w e assume t h e c o u n t y r e c o r d s have been i n c o r r e c t f o r a t l e a s t 75 years, t h e s e records serve a s evidence supporting t h e c o r r e c t - n e s s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment; e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t e s t i m o n y i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e a c r e a g e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p o r t i o n s as claimed by p l a i n t i f f s would a p p r o x i m a t e t h e a s s e s s m e n t r e c o r d s . The u s e o f t h e t e r m "wagon r o a d " i n t h e d e e d s t e n d s t o s u p p o r t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1886 s u r v e y a s t h e p r o p e r boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' L o t 5. interests in Of c o u r s e a l l r o a d s w e r e wagon r o a d s i n 1899 and 1 9 0 3 , but not a l l roads w e r e so designated. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s c o u n t y r o a d s were s o named i n a l l p l a t s , s u r v e y s , and r o a d books o f f e r e d i n t o evidence. I f t h e s c r i v e n e r intended t h e road d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e d e e d s t o be t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d , o r a dedicated county road a t roughly t h e p r e s e n t r o a d ' s l o c a t i o n , he would have s a i d c o u n t y r o a d i n t h e d e e d s . Upon examining t h e r e c o r d , we f i n d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and judgments of the d i s t r i c t court. W e n e x t c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of a c q u i e s c e n s e on t h e p a r t of p l a i n t i f f s t o t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d s e r v i n g a s t h e boundary between t h e e a s t and w e s t p o r t i o n s of L o t 5 . What i s " a c q u i e s c e n c e " ? i n Pence v . Langdon, 9 9 U.S. A h e l p f u l d e f i n i t i o n i s found 578, 25 L.Ed. 420, 421: " ' A c q u i e s c e n s e and w a i v e r a r e always q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . There c a n be n e i t h e r w i t h o u t knowledge. * * * One c a n n o t waive or a c q u i e s c e i n a wrong w h i l e i g n o r a n t t h a t it h a s been committed. * * * There must be knowledge of f a c t s which w i l l e n a b l e t h e p a r t y t o t a k e e f f e c t u a l a c t i o n . Nothing s h o r t o f t h i s w i l l do. When f u l l y a d v i s e d , h e must d e c i d e and a c t w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i s p a t c h . ' " T h i s r e m a i n s t h e law of a c q u i e s c e n c e , a s i n d i c a t e d i n 1 2 Am J u r 2d B o u n d a r i e s , S85: "With r e g a r d t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a common boundary l i n e , a c q u i e s c e n c e means a c o n s e n t t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s and i n v o l v e s knowledge of them * * *.*I See a l s o : Houplin v . S t o e n , 72 Wash.2d 1 3 1 , 431 P.2d 998. The r u l e s l a i d down i n Hoar v . Hennessy, 2 9 Mont. 253, 74 P. 452; Borgeson v . Tubb, 54 Mont. 557, 172 P. 326; T i l l i n g e r v . F r i s b i e , 132 Mont. 583, 318 P.2d 1079; a r e s u f f i c i e n t f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e u s e of t h e Pence d e f i n i t i o n i n Montana. I n a p p l y i n g t h e Pence d e f i n i t i o n o f " a c q u i e s c e n c e " t o t h e i n s t a n t case, w e f i n d p l a i n t i f f s did not acquiesce t o t h e present c o u n t y r o a d s e r v i n g as t h e boundary between t h e e a s t and w e s t p o r t i o n s of Lot 5 . The r e c o r d s show p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s a c c e p t e d t h e p r e s e n t county road a s t h e boundary between t h e i r l a n d s f o r over 30 y e a r s b u t t h i s was n o t acquiescence on t h e p a r t of p l a i n t i f f s , a s t h e y were i g n o r a n t of t h e f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h e p r e s e n t county road i s n o t t h e t r u e boundary. When p l a i n t i f f s became " f u l l y a d v i s e d " of t h e f a c t s , t h e y a c t e d "with r e a s o n a b l e d i s p a t c h " t o e s t a b l i s h t h e t r u e boundaries. Defendants a l l e g e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g t h e p r e s e n t county road t o be t h e t r u e boundary, based on t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e h e a r i n g . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e h e a r i n g d i d n o t d i s prove t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e 1886 wagon road a s t h e t r u e boundary. The evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e h e a r i n g c o n s i s t e d of an 1890 road book and a viewer r e p o r t of a "County Road from S p r i n g d a l e t o Mendenhall''. introduced. N evidence of t h e d e d i c a t i o n of t h i s road was o I n f a c t , t h e r e c o r d shows, t h i s r o a d ' s l o c a t i o n was n o t t h e e x a c t l o c a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n t county road. The Park County assessment r e c o r d , d i s c u s s e d h e r e t o f o r e , a l s o does n o t i n d i c a t e t h e p r e s e n t county r o a d a s t h e t r u e boundary. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n concluding t h e e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e r e h e a r i n g was n o t r e l e v a n t nor m a t e r i a l t o t h e e x i s t e n c e and l o c a t i o n of t h e "wagon r o a d " , d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e 1899 and 1903 deeds. Defendants a l l e g e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e 1890 r e c o r d s , t h e r e b y c a u s i n g a f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t , a s t h e f a i l u r e was m a t e r i a l and m i s l e d the court. P l a i n t i f f s admit t o knowledge of t h e 1890 r e c o r d s p r i o r t o t h e o r i g i n a l hearing. P l a i n t i f f s t e s t i f i e d the records w e r e n o t brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e c o u r t , because t h e y d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h e 1890 r e c o r d s r e l e v a n t t o t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e "wagon road". The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e s e r e c o r d s n o t r e l e v a n t o r m a t e r i a l t o t h e wagon r o a d c o n t r o v e r s y , t h u s p l a i n t i f f s ' failure t o b r i n g them t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n c o u l d n o t be m i s l e a d i n g o r a f r a u d on t h e c o u r t . Defendants a l l e g e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g The c o s t s c h a l l e n g e d are: certain costs to plaintiffs. f e e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f summons; (1) t h e ( 2 ) p r e p a r a t i o n o f maps and s u r v e y s ; and ( 3 ) c o p i e s o f d e p o s i t i o n s p u r c h a s e d by p l a i n t i f f s f o r t r i a l preparation. S e c t i o n 93-8618, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "A p a r t y t o whom c o s t s a r e awarded i n a n a c t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o include i n h i s b i l l of c o s t s h i s necessary disbursements, a s follows: * * * t h e expenses of t a k i n g d e p o s i t i o n s ; t h e l e g a l f e e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n when p u b l i c a t i o n i s d i r e c t e d * * * t h e l e g a l f e e s p a i d s t e n o g r a p h e r s f o r p e r diem o r f o r c o p i e s * * * t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s f o r making a map o r maps i f r e q u i r e d , and n e c e s s a r y t o be u s e d on t r i a l o r h e a r i n g * * *". The p u b l i c a t i o n f e e s a r e a l l o w e d by s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , t h u s t h e s e c o s t s were p r o p e r l y c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s . The c o s t of p r e p a r a t i o n o f maps and s u r v e y s a r e a l l o w e d where n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n t h e s i t u a t i o n . Kelly v. C i t y of Butte, 4 4 Mont. 1 1 5 , 119 P. 171; P e r k i n s v . S t e p h e n s , 1 3 1 Mont. 1 3 8 , 308 P.2d 620. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e maps a s s i s t e d t h e c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e and l o c a t i o n o f t h e wagon r o a d . Both p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e maps i n t o e v i d e n c e . The r e a s o n a b l e c o s t f o r p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e maps e n t e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e s h a l l be a l l o w e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e whether any p a r t o f t h e map and s u r v e y c o s t s b i l l e d by p l a i n t i f f s a r o s e from s u r v e y s o r maps o f p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y o u t s i d e L o t 5 o r d i d n o t p e r t a i n t o t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e "wagon road". Any such u n n e c e s s a r y expense s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d a s c o s t s charged t o defendants. The c o p i e s of d e p o s i t i o n s p u r c h a s e d by p l a i n t i f f s f o r t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n w e r e s o l e l y f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' b e n e f i t and c a n n o t be c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s . Davis v . Trobough, 139 Mont. 322, 363 P.2d 727. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c o s t s c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s , which s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h directions n e r e l n . Chief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.