*1 189 of ex- supervision this court boards over administrative ecutive branch. myriad
I do this court to pronouncements find a of discretionary of may powers effect that it not interfere with administrative boards.
This has the purpose court also of the con- observed provision department stitutional an is constitute each ex- to to power it, only clusive trustee of the in vested accountable people exercise, may for its faithful each act as a cheek so other, on the prevent tyranny and thus oppression and which body. would result from lodging power in the hands of one This court has stated that particular whenever a executive duty requires the political of exercise or administrative dis- cretion it power interfere, has deemed itself without whether such discretion wisely exercised or not.
By provisions our many reason of Constitution and precedents existing opinions I court, of this deem this matter be one court has jurisdiction, over which our no and I therefore not do concur the issuance of this order.
MR. JUSTICE CASTLES: foregoing
I disposal dissent to the of the cause. only It is recitation of the any events and not based on law. Mary LACEY,
VIOLET J. Administratrix of the Estate Allen, Also Allen, Known as Deceased, Plain- L. CLARENCE HARMON and IDA Appellant, tiff and v. HARMON, and SECURITY STATE Wife, Husband BANK, Harlem, Montana, Corporation, Montana De- Respondents. fendants No. 9993.
Submitted March 1960. Decided June 353 2dP. *2 Havre, Morrison, H. for Risken, Helena, John Robert D. appellant. orally. H. Risken argued John Harry
Harry Burns, Sias, Chinook, respondents. L. D. J. for orally. L. argued Burns ( MR. JUSTICE Opinion ANGSTMAN delivered the Court.
Mary E. Allen during her lifetime was the owner of certain land County. situated Blaine July 26, On 1951, when 82 age, she entered defendants, into with the sum and they substance of buy which was were to land from Allen $9,000 for the sum of pay- and that ment should turning be made over to her one-fourth of the *3 crop year raised each $9,000 until the sum of paid. was The unpaid principal bore no interest. In case of her death before the paid land was full, for in the contract was to be deemed fulfilled and defendants should have the land. Papers were in placed pursuant escrow to be delivered to the contract.
For several before 1951 the defendants held the land arrangement under a lease Mary with by E. Allen which she one-fourth of crop. received the only
The substantial difference after purported the sale was made was that the defendant pay should the taxes on the prop- erty and property have the after the price paid was through crop the in payments or ease Mrs. Allen died before paid. the contract price was September 18, 1953,
On Mary E. Allen died. Plaintiff, Violet appointed Lacey, J. was administratrix of her estate. Mrs. Lacey deceased, was a of the Mary niece E. Allen, being daughter only of a deceased The brother. other heir by left Mrs. is Lacey. Allen a brother of Mrs.
Only $950, in has been payment, one that the sum by lifetime Mary during made the Allen her on defendants to the purchase. set aside brought contract to This action was to escrow, sale, papers placed the contract other and the upon ground Mary mental ca- the that Allen was without E. pacity upon the time contract and at the she entered into the ground adequate consideration. that the contract was without jury. The sitting cause the
The to court without tried competent July E. on Mary mentally court found that Allen was sale 1951, at time for the the she entered into the contract land, capacity the that the to understand of the she had consequences; that there was no evi- nature of the act and its fraud, duress, menace actual that or she was actuated dence when executed the instru- constructive, by a mistake she or or question. ments in generally plaintiff and in favor against found
The court accordingly. This judgment and entered defendants judgment. from the appeal is made, error there specifications of are
While several and that is case whether question involved one but Allen at the time of that finding erred in the court agreement papers and escrow had signing purported doing. she was know and understand what capacity to mental that if substantial there be evidence is fundamental rule The findings facts, of the trier of the support record in the ruling. Where evidence is with its not interfere we will light it most favorable to the conflicting will review we proved which the that evidence party and consider prevailing though is true even we believe and this prove, tends *4 finding other to warrant the may sufficient evidence be there 542, 349 P.2d Dillenburg’s Estate, 136 Mont. re In way. considering the evidence question of to the come then We findings trial support the of the which tends record judge.
493
start
presumption
¥e
with the
was
that
the decedent
of
at
sound mind
the time the
into,
transaction was entered
101,
Greenhood,
Sommerville
1048,
v.
Mont.
210 P.
the
bufden
proving
of
upon
asserting.
otherwise is
the
Es
one so
tey Haughian,
v.
Evidence to the mental competency de of the ceased principally consists opinions acquaint of intimate ances 93-401-27, under section Thronson, subd. 10. H. who P. was President Bank, of Harlem drew the instruments re lating to upon this transaction given information to him Mrs. gave Allen. opinion He it as his that competent she was at the time. Other witnesses consisted of of residents "Wolf Greek many who had known decedent for and were well-acquainted with her. One of such witnesses had borrowed money from her for the Fire Department Wolf Creek and at that time she was in sound mental condition and knew what she doing. Other witnesses who intimately were ac quainted with Mrs. Allen testified to the same effect. shortly
The record shows that executing after question here, and the accompanying papers, Mrs. Allen made three wills. One of wills had been lost and was not produced In gave therefore at the trial. the others she substan- tially property her the defendant of Harmon. against
As this there is contrary evidence evidence of a na- principally ture and Dr. Lindstrom who had treated Mrs. Allen at At presented various times. most this a conflict might justified in the evidence which have decision either way, and in will such circumstances we not interfere with In finding of the trier of the Dillenburg’s Estate, facts. re supra, Wigmore (3rd ed.) and see 227, 228, p. on Evidence §§ seq. et upon
Finding grounds no sufficient which to reverse the judgment court, judgment the trial affirmed. *5 MR. CAS- HARRISON, JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE CHIEF G-LORE, District EMMET THE HONORABLE TLES and BOTTOMLY, concur. MR. JUSTICE Judge, sitting place concurring in result. MR. ADAIR JUSTICE fore- that is said in the result, I but not in concur going opinion. Respond- AGENCY,
ARROW Corporation, Plaintiff Appellant. ANDERSON, v. EMELIA ent, Defendant No. 9925. June 1959. Decided Submitted December 855 P. 2d