[Download] "Hill v. Chappel Bros. of Montana" by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hill v. Chappel Bros. of Montana
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 23, 1934
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
Trespass ? Livestock ? Depasturing Leased Indian Lands ? Value of Grasses ? Evidence ? Estimate Proper ? Appeal and Error ? Law of Case ? Defendant Overstocking Lands ? Burden of Proof ? Harmless Error ? Excessive Verdict. Trespass ? Livestock ? Depasturing of Grazing Lands ? Value of Grasses ? Evidence ? Estimates Proper. 1. In an action for damages for the wrongful depasturing of Indian lands leased for the purpose of grazing sheep and trespassed - Page 306 upon by large bands of defendants horses, evidence as to the value of grass on each of the leases, an estimate of the per cent. of grass consumed by the horses, and the percentage of such horses as belonged to defendant, determined by the brands they bore, was properly admissible, such method being in accord with approved practice, the jury being thus permitted to make their best possible estimate of the damage done in making their award. Same ? Excessive Verdict ? What Does not Constitute. 2. Verdict for $16,000 damages for depasturing leased Indian lands for which plaintiff paid an annual rental of $23,000, held not excessive where the record disclosed that trespassing horses had consumed from 25 to 50 per cent. of the grass three years in succession, and from 15 to 20 per cent. of the grass crop for the fourth year, and that from 75 to 80 per cent. of such horses belonged to defendant. Same ? Exemplary Damages ? Appeal and Error ? Law of Case. 3. Where on the second appeal in an action for damages for wrongfully depasturing grazing lands the evidence that defendants employees knowingly drove his horses on the lands held by plaintiff for sheep-grazing purposes was even stronger than on the first trial, the holding of the supreme court on the first appeal that an instruction as to exemplary damages recoverable was warranted by the evidence constituted the law of the case, whether right or wrong, and was controlling on the second appeal with relation to the same alleged error. Same ? Appeal and Error ? Instructions ? Law of Case. 4. Review of assignments of error on a second appeal with relation to the giving and refusing of instructions identical with those given and refused on the first trial, and which were disposed of on the first appeal by the statement in the supreme courts opinion: "We deem assignments of error not covered by anything we have said of no importance," is barred under the rule of the law of the case. Same ? Defendant Overstocking Leased Indian Lands ? Horses Straying Back to Former Range ? Burden of Proof. 5. In an action for damages for depasturing lands belonging to Indians which had been leased to plaintiff for grazing sheep, where there was evidence that defendant, who likewise held leases on other such lands for the grazing of horses, had overstocked the lands held by him, the burden of alleging and proving in mitigation of damages that some of his horses which had been bought by him from Indians living on the lands covered by the sheep leases had returned to their former range from habit and not because the feed on defendants leases had been depleted, was upon defendant. Same ? Evidence ? Reading of Deposition of Indian Agent ? Conclusions ? Harmless Error. 6. Reading of a deposition made by the superintendent of the Indian agency in charge of Indian lands leased to livestock men, one of whom charged another with depasturing the lands held by him, that on a survey made by the officer of the range covered by the leases he had observed that water "seemed to be scarce," and saw "considerable evidence of trespassing horses," objected to as a conclusion of the witness, if error, held harmless. - Page 307 Appeal and Error ? Judgment not to be Reversed for Harmless Error ? Whether Error Harmless or not ? How Determined. 7. A judgment will not be reversed for harmless error, and whether a particular error shall be classed as harmful or harmless depends upon the particular facts and circumstances in the case under review.