(DOWNLOAD) "Moore v. Capitol Gas Corporation" by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Moore v. Capitol Gas Corporation
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 27, 1945
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
1. Jury ? waiving jury trial. The modes prescribed by statute for waiving right to a trial by jury are exclusive. 2. Jury ? constitutional guaranty does not enlarge right to jury trial. The constitutional guaranty of a right to a trial by jury does not grant or enlarge the right of a jury trial but merely preserves it as it existed at the time the Constitution was adopted. 3. Equity ? retention of jurisdiction to determine legal issues. A court of equity once having jurisdiction of a suit will retain jurisdiction of it for all purposes and will dispose of all questions in the case even though it involves the determination of legal issues. 4. Mortgages ? exclusive equitable jurisdiction. The court will ordinarily treat a suit to foreclose a mortgage as a unity and as one of exclusive equitable jurisdiction. 5. Equity ? court after finding security is lost not barred from determining existence of debt. In a suit in equity for collection of a note and the foreclosure of the mortgage securing the note, the trial judge, by finding that the security had become lost and the mortgage lien unenforceable, was - Page 149 not deprived of the right to determine whether the debt existed, without presenting the issues to the jury. 6. Judgments ? not binding on those not parties. A judgment can be taken only against a party to the action and is not binding against a stranger thereto. 7. Judgment ? relief for mistake etc. given to party directly affected only. The purpose of a statute authorizing a court to relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, order or other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, is to give relief to a party who is directly affected, and not to give relief to a stranger who might be indirectly affected. 8. Corporations ? stockholder who failed to intervene in time not entitled to relief. Where a stockholder of the defendant corporation was not named as a plaintiff or defendant in suit for collection of note and foreclosure of mortgage, and did not intervene in the suit before trial and was not brought in as a party by court order, and the judgment was not taken against her, such stockholder was not entitled to have the judgment vacated under the statute authorizing court to relieve party of a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. 9. Corporations ? to have judgment vacated must show judgment to be against party by reason of mistake etc. Even if the stockholder of defendant corporation was otherwise entitled to have judgment in the suit for collection of the note and the foreclosure of the mortgage vacated under the statute authorizing the court to relieve a party from a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, judgment could not be vacated, in absence of showing that judgment was taken against the defendant corporation by reason of its mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. 10. Judgments ? power of equity court to relieve against. A court of equity may give relief against judgments obtained by extrinsic fraud and such power is inherent and may be granted either on motion in the original cause or upon a separate equity suit for that purchase. 11. Corporations ? stockholders motion to vacate insufficient. Motion of stockholder of the defendant corporation to vacate a judgment in suit for a collection of a note and to foreclose a mortgage was insufficient to warrant relief against fraud under equity courts inherent power, where motion did not excuse stockholders failure to seek her statutory right to intervene in time and to become a party to the suit.