Whitesides Property and Legal Issues

 

 The August 29, 1889 Philipsburg Mail in a column titled “Bearmouth Notes” stated: “The home of Andrew Whitesides, who resides about two-and-a-half miles west of Bearmouth is the pride of the section,… and anyone who has visited it will tell you there is nothing like it in Montana... The ranch is abundantly supplied with clear, cold water from Harvey Creek, which can be applied to any part of the farm when ever required. The dwelling is one of those old fashioned, comfortable log houses of western style, but with many modern improvements and additions and the roofs of which are almost completely covered with hop vines. A stream of the purest water runs through the yard and the whole place is completely surrounded by lofty shade trees, which have grown from the seeds planted by Mr. Whitesides some twenty years ago. Over forty acres of beautiful farm are devoted to garden purposes and produces almost anything that grows in temperate countries. At present the apple trees are so loaded with fruit that it is necessary to prop them up and the vegetables are so abundant, that what would be a surprise to some tables in many places, are being fed to the stock instead of grain…” 

An article June 20, 1904, concerning Whitesides was headlined “Whitesides Wins His Suit” with history of the lawsuit and the verdict: “In the district Court Monday evening Judge Napton announced his decision in the case of A.J. Whitesides vs E.B. Weirick et al, which was tried here during the September term of court. …The issue involved the title to and possession of the Whitesides ranch at the mouth of Harvey creek near Bearmouth. The case was called for trial October 1, 1903, and occupied the attention of the district court for three days. After hearing the evidence the court took the matter under advisement, and the decision was announced Monday evening. 

Summed up briefly the case is as follows: In 1894 the Montana National Bank of Helena, brought suit against A.J. Whitesides and his wife to foreclose a mortgage and the ranch was sold. Before expiration of the time allowed for redemption, on August 4, 1894, Mr. Whitesides got the Lannen brothers to advance $3,400 to redeem the property, with the agreement that the sheriff should make the deed to Lannen brothers to secure repayment of the money advanced, on April 4, 1900, Lannen brothers to have use of the ranch and cultivate the same for the interest on the money loaned. On April 18, 1900, the money was repaid, $2500 being raised by mortgaging the property to the State Savings Bank of Butte, by Whitesides and his wife. Lannen brothers instead of conveying the property back to Whitesides, conveyed the same to Mr. and Mrs. Julius Herman, Mrs. Herman being Whitesides daughter. Later Mr. and Mrs. Herman conveyed the homestead and some railroad land, one-half of which railroad land was claimed by Whitesides, to Morris and Forsyth for a consideration of $12,500. This was November 1902. Whitesides, the plaintiff, claims the transaction to have been a mortgage, and that all purchasers had notice that it was such. He sued to have the deeds cancelled from Lannen brothers to Herman and successors in interest, and for the possession of the property and for rents and profit. The defendants claimed to be purchasers without notice of Whitesides equities, and also that Whitesides failed to pay on April 1, 1900, and according to the agreement between Whitesides and Lannen brothers, that the transaction in 1894 was a sale from Whitesides and wife to Lannen brothers with an option from Lannen brothers to Whitesides and wife to re-purchase on April 1, 1900. Having failed to do so on the date named, it was claimed by the defense the option was forfeited. 

Judge Napton based his decision on fifteen separate findings of fact, and on the following conclusions of law: First—that the agreement date, August 4, 1894, between plaintiff and the Lannen’s was a mortgage. Second—that the sum was paid on April 18, 1900. Third—that the defendants had knowledge of the same. Fourth—that the plaintiff is the owner of and entitled to the possession of the lands described in the complaint as the homestead. Fifth—that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to one-half of the land jointly with the defendants, described in the complaint as the railroad lands. 

Obviously this was not the end of the issue. The June 9, 1905 Mail carried the following article under the court notes: Whitesides vs Weirick et al., motion for new trial was argued by counsel and taken under advisement by the court.” Research failed to discover any conclusion of the court.