which either may have in any of the courts of the territory. All of the justices concurring, except HAINER, J., who tried the cause below, not sitting, and IRWIN, J., absent. Reversed and remanded.

CUNNINGHAM V. MORRIS. (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. July 18, 1902.) Error from district court, Kay county; before Justice Bayard T. Hainer. Action by Josephus Morris against James F. Cunningham. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Afirmed. S. H. Harris, for plaintiff in error. W. B. Herod and Edgar W. Jones, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The record and facts in this case are identical with those in the case of McQuiston v. Walton (No. 1,146, decided at this term of court) 69 Pac. 1048, and on the authority of that case the judgment of the district court of Kay county is affirmed, at the costs of the plaintiff in error.

ENDICOTT v. ELLIS et al. (No. 917.) LEE v. ELLIS et al. (No. 918.) (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. July 17, 1902.) Error from district court, Kay county; before Justice Bayard T. Hainer. Action by Herbert E. Ellis and Sam Lee against George P. Endicott. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants severally bring error. Reversed. In No. 917: S. H. Harris, for plaintiff in error. E. Bee Guthrey, for defendant in error Ellis. Dale & Bierer, for defendant in error Lee. In No. 918: J. R. Scott, for plaintiff in error. S. H. Harris, for defendant in error Endicott. E. Bee Guthrey, for defendant in error Ellis. Dale & Bierer, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. This was an action commenced in the district court of Kay county by Herbert E. Ellis against Sam Lee and George P. Endicott for a mandatory injunction and for other relief as to crops growing thereon. Issues were joined, a trial had, and judgment rendered for plaintiff, enjoining the defendants, or either of them, from in any way occupying any portion of the land in controversy, and the growing crops were divided. The costs were taxed to the defendants. From this judgment the defendants each appealed, and the cases will be disposed of in this opinion. This case raises no new questions which were not considered in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson (just decided) 69 Pac. 1132, and for the reasons given in that case these cases will be reversed, and a new trial granted, and the lower court is directed to proceed in conformity with the views expressed in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson, supra. It is further ordered that the parties be placed in the same occupancy of the land that they were in at the time of the commencement of this action, and to so remain until the further order of the district court, or the judge thereof; but this order is not intended to preclude the parties, or either of them. from pursuing any other remedy which either may have in any of the courts of the territory. All of the justices concurring, except HAINER, J., who tried the cause below, not sitting. and IRWIN, J., absent.

MCDONALD v. BRADY. (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. July 17, 1902.) Error from district court, Kay county; before Justice Bayard T. Hainer. Action by Michael Brady against John H. McDonald. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed. Harris & Gum, for plaintiff in error. Ransom & Bailey, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an action for mandatory injunction. The facts in this case are

the same as those in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson (decided at this sitting of this court) 69 Pac. 1132, and for the reasons given in that case this will be reversed, and a new trial granted; and the lower court is directed to proceed in conformity with the views expressed in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson, supra. Costs taxed to the appellee. It is further ordered that the parties be placed in the same Occupancy of the land that they were in at the time of the commencement of this action, and to so remain until the further order of the district court, or the judge thereof; but this order is not intended to preclude the parties, or either of them, from pursuing any other remedy which either may have in any of the courts of the territory. All the justices concurring, except HAINER, J., who tried the cause below, not sitting, and IRWIN, J., absent.

MENDENHALL V. CAGLE. (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. July 17, 1902.) Error from_district court, Noble county; before Justice Bayard T. Hainer. Action by Byron E. Cagle against W. J. Mendenhall. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed. S. H. Harris, for plaintiff in error. A. R. Museller, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an action for mandatory injunction. The facts in this case are the same as those in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson (decided at this sitting of this court) 69 Pac. 1132, and for the reasons given in that case this will be reversed, and a new trial granted; and the lower court is directed to proceed in conformity with the views expressed in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson, supra. Costs taxed to the appellee. It is further ordered that the parties be placed in the same occupancy of the land that they were in at the time of the commencement of this action, and to so remain until the further order of the district court, or the judge thereof; but this order is not intended to preclude the parties, or either of them, from pursuing any other remedy which either may have in any of the courts of the territory. All of the justices concurring, except HAINER, J., who tried the cause below, not sitting, and IRWIN, J., absent.

WYATT v. WARD. (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. July 17, 1902.) Error from district court, Kay county; before Justice Bayard T. Hainer. Action by William Ward against Logan Wyatt. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed. S. H. Harris, for plaintiff in error. Cline & Hill, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. This is an action for mandatory injunction. The facts in this case are the same as those in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson (decided at this sitting of this court) 69 Pac. 1132, and for the reasons given in that case this will be reversed, and a new trial granted; and the lower court is directed to proceed in conformity with the views expressed in the case of Anderson v. Ferguson, supra. Costs taxed to the appellee. It is further ordered that the parties be placed in the same occupancy of the land that they were in at the time of the commencement of this action, and to so remain until the further order of the district court or the judge thereof; but this order is not intended to preclude the parties, or either of them, from pursuing any other remedy which either may have in any of the courts of the territory. All the justices concurring, except HAINER. J., who tried the cause below, not sitting, and IRWIN, J., ab

sent.

SALT LAKE HARDWARE CO. V. FIELDS et al. (Supreme Court of Utah. July 5, 1902.) Suit by the Salt Lake Hardware Company against the Daisy Gold Mining Company, Seward H. Fields, trustee, and the Bank of Commerce of Salt Lake City. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, Fields and the bank appeal. Affirmed.

MINER, C. J. This case is determined by the opinion filed in Fields v. Mining Co. (decided at present term) 69 Pac. 529. The judg ment of the district court is affirmed.

BARTCH, J., concurs. BASKIN, J., dis

sents.

STEWART v. HILTON. (Supreme Court of Utah. July 21, 1902.) Appeal from district court, Salt Lake county; W. C. Hall, Judge. Action by Samuel W. Stewart, executor of John R. Park, against Annie F. A. Hilton. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. N. V. Jones and Powers, Straup & Lippman, for appellant. Bennett, Sutherland, Van Cott & Allison, Pierce, Critchlow & Barrette, and Stewart & Stewart, for respondent.

BARTCH, J. This action was brought by the executor of the last will and testament of John R. Park, deceased, against the defendant. to quiet title to certain property of which disposition was made in the will, and in which property defendant claims an interest as widow of the deceased. The defendant herein was the plaintiff in the case of Hilton v. Roylance (decided at the present term) 69 Pac. 660. The evidence admitted in that case was practically the same as in this. The decisive legal questions presented herein were involved and decided therein. Therefore for our opinion and decision of the points here presented we refer to that case, and in accordance therewith this case must be reversed, with costs, and remanded, with instructions to the court below to proceed in conformity with that opinion. It is so ordered.

MINER, C. J., and BASKIN, J., concur.

KAKELDEY v. HEMRICH BROS. BREWING CO. (Supreme Court of Washington. July 12, 1902.) Appeal from superior court, AcKing county: Boyd J. Tallman, Judge. tion by Frederick Kakeldey against the Hemrich Bros. Brewing Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. H. E. Foster, for appellant. Preston, Carr & Gilman, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in this case owns a lot adjoining plaintiff Schwede, whose suit against the same defendant was determined July 5, 1902, in which similar relief is claimed. Upon the authority of Schwede V. Brewing Co., 69 Pac. 362, this case is reversed, with direction to the superior court to grant the relief prayed for in the complaint.

MULLENNIX et al. v. BRUMMETT.1 (Supreme Court of Washington. July 23, 1902.) Appeal from superior court, Chehalis county; Mason Irwin, Judge. Suit by J. B. Mullennix and another against H. M. Brummett. From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed. W. H. Abel and A. M. Abel, for appellant. B. G. Cheney, for respondents.

REAVIS, C. J. Suit for dissolution of partnership and an accounting among the copartners. The findings of the superior court are substantially as follows: That the partnership 1 Rehearing denied September 21, 1902.

was formed by parol agreement about July 1, 1899, for the purpose of logging certain timber standing within 1,000 feet of the Satsop river, Chehalis county; that a portion of the timber was owned under contract of purchase by plaintiffs, and a portion of the land on which some of the timber stood was owned by plaintiff McDougall; that plaintiffs did not transfer or agree to transfer to the partnership any interest in the contract for the purchase of the timber, but only granted to the partnership a permissive right to log such timber and to pay the owners 50 cents per 1,000 feet for all timber so logged; that there was no time limit fixed for such partnership, and no actual agreement as to the length of time such business should be conducted; that under such agreement the partnership built roadways nec essary for logging and cut about 346 logs of about 1,000 feet board measure; that by the terms of the agreement the plaintiffs were to furnish the timber to be logged, and defendant was to furnish the use of his team, and all parties were to contribute their labor in the business; that each was to pay one-third of the expenses, and each should receive one-third of the profits of the business; that the partnership continued business until about the 15th of November, 1900; that defendant at different times collected sums of money belonging to the partnership, for which he failed and refused to account; and that by reason thereof differences arose between the parties, making it necessary to dissolve the partnership and to take an accounting. The defendant claimed damages for the dissolution of the partnership. The court found that no proof of damages had been made. The decree dissolved the partnership and made an accounting. No controversy is made here upon the sums stated in the ac count. The evidence relating to the grounds for dissolution of the partnership has been examined, and, we think, sustained the finding that necessity for a dissolution existed. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint and overruled. We are satisfied the complaint stated a cause of action. No error of law is perceived in the conclusions of the superior court, and the judgment is affirmed.

COOPER v. STATE BOARD OF LAND COM'RS et al. (Supreme Court of Wyoming. June 25, 1902.) Error to district court, Carbou county; David H. Craig, Judge. Suit by Frank Cooper against the state board of land commissioners and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. versed. McMicken & Blydenburgh and N. E. Corthell, for plaintiff in error. J. A. Van Orsdel, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error state board of land com'rs. F. Chatterton, for defendant in error McCormick.

Re

POTTER, C. J. This was an action brought in the district court of Carbon county by the plaintiff in error to enjoin the state board of land commissioners and John W. McCormick from entering into an agreement of lease as to certain state lands which the plaintiff in error claimed should be leased to him in renewal of a former lease held by him for the premises. in consequence of the reclamation of the land through his efforts. Upon a hearing the board had rejected the claim of plaintiff in error, and ordered that a lease be executed to McCormick. An appeal was taken to the district court for Carbon county, and it is conceded that the purpose of this action was to cause a stay of further proceedings by the land board pending a hearing and decision on the appeal. The district court, having affirmed the determination of the board on the appeal aforesaid, ren

dered its judgment in this suit in favor of defendants, from which plaintiff prosecutes error. As the suit was ancillary to the contest arising in the land board, and both matters were before this court on error, this cause was submitted upon the briefs in the main case entitled "Frank Cooper, Plaintiff in Error, against John W. McCormick, Defendant in Error.' That case has been decided, by an opinion this day handed down (69 Pac. 301), and the judgment of the district court reversed, with direc tions to that court to reverse the determination of the board and order the issuance of a lease to Cooper, the plaintiff in error. No other points were discussed by counsel in this cause. As the district court based its judgment herein upon its affirmance in the other case of the decision of the board, and that having been adjudged by this court to be erroneous, the judgment in this cause will be reversed, and the cause remanded for such further proceedings as shall be deemed proper in the premises, in accordance with the views expressed by this

court in its opinion in the other case. Reversed. CORN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

STATE ex rel. BOSTON & M. CONSOL. COPPER & SILVER MIN. CO. v. DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DIST. (Supreme Court of Montana. Feb. 16, 1901.) Alternative writ of mandate issued. On motion to tax costs. Forbis & Evans, for relator. J. M. Denny, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. It appearing from the original and supplemental answers made to the alternative writs of mandate heretofore issued herein that the defendant has fully complied with the requirements of said writs in both hearing and determining the matters which it was sought by said writs to have heard and determined, but that no sufficient, or any, excuse is furnished why said matters were not heard and determined before the said writs were applied for and issued, it is ordered that the writs be discharged at the cost of the defendant.