No. 12804
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1976
HAROLD J. JOHNSON and MAVIS M. JOHNSON,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
-vs -
T O A JARRETT and SIGRID JARRETT,
HMS
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: District Court o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellants :
Yardley and Yardley , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
J a c k Yardley a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana
H o l t e r and Heath, Bozeman, Montana
Robert M. H o l t e r argued, Bozernan, Montana
For Respondents :
J o n e s , Olson, and C h r i s t e n s e n , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Gerald D. C h r i s t e n s e n a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
William V. Moore a p p e a r e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: F e b r u a r y , 2 , 1976
Decided : ii$dak 2 $ f':m
F i l e d :'\"#A@ % C, J$jJs
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
T h i s a p p e a l i s from a judgment i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n
e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County, d e t e r m i n i n g t h e
boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' p r o p e r t y .
P l a i n t i f f s Johnson f i l e d a n a c t i o n t o q u i e t t i t l e t o
a b o u t 500 acres o f l a n d l o c a t e d i n S e c t i o n 1 5 , Township 1 S o u t h ,
Range 1 2 E a s t , M.P.M., P a r k County, Montana. This appeal arises
o v e r a c o n t r o v e r s y a s t o t h e boundary l i n e s e p a r a t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y
of p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s i n L o t 5 o f S e c t i o n 1 5 .
I n 1899, a l l of L o t 5 , S e c t i o n 1 5 , w a s owned by Timothy
Murray. On J u l y 8 , 1899, he conveyed by deed t o Susan A. Mendenhall:
" A l l t h a t p o r t i o n o f Lot F i v e ( 5 ) which i s e a s t o f
t h e wagon r o a d l e a d i n g from t h e S p r i n g d a l e S t a t i o n
on t h e N o r t h e r n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d n o r t h t o H u n t e r s
Hot S p r i n g s and n o r t h of t h e t r a c k of s a i d r a i l r o a d
a s now l o c a t e d . "
Defendants J a r r e t t a r e t h e s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o Susan A. Men-
d e n h a l l , and t h e l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1899 deed.
On August 11, 1903, Timothy Murray deeded t o James A .
Murray :
" A l l t h a t p o r t i o n o f Lot F i v e ( 5 ) l y i n g w e s t of
t h e wagon r o a d from r a i l r o a d t o H u n t e r s Hot
Springs. "
P l a i n t i f f s Johnson a r e s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t t o James A. Murray
and t h e l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1903 d e e d .
The i s s u e i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e
wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n b o t h d e e d s a s forming t h e boundary t o
t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s ' p o r t i o n o f L o t 5.
P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h e "wagon r o a d " i s t h a t c e r t a i n wagon
r o a d r u n n i n g from S p r i n g d a l e S t a t i o n t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s a s
shown on a United S t a t e s Government Survey o f J u l y , 1886. This
road r a n i n a roughly e a s t - w e s t d i r e c t i o n through Lot 5 ending
a t a f e r r y a c r o s s t h e Yellowstone R i v e r .
Defendants a l l e g e t h e "wagon r o a d " i s t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y
r o a d r u n n i n g from t h e p r e s e n t S p r i n g d a l e t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s .
(Mendenhall). T h i s r o a d r u n s n o r t h and s o u t h t h r o u g h L o t 5 t o
a b r i d g e a c r o s s t h e Yellowstone R i v e r .
A t t h e p r e s e n t t h e r e i s no p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e of t h e wagon
r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1886 s u r v e y .
Defendants i n t r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e o f t h e move o f t h e S p r i n g -
d a l e S t a t i o n a p p r o x i m a t e l y two m i l e s e a s t on t h e Great N o r t h e r n
L i n e a t some t i m e between t h e y e a r 1886 and 1898, w i t h t h e p r e s e n t
c o u n t y r o a d b e i n g b u i l t a b o u t t h e same t i m e .
Defendants a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d i s
bounded on t h e e a s t by f e n c e s which have e x i s t e d i n t h e i r p r e s e n t
l o c a t i o n f o r a t l e a s t 35 y e a r s .
P l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s a g r e e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s have n e v e r
used any of Lot 5 e a s t of t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d , n o r d i d d e f e n d -
a n t s u s e any o f t h e l a n d w e s t o f t h e r o a d .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y , found i n f a v o r
o f p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m and e n t e r e d judgment a c c o r d i n g l y .
A l l post-judgment m o t i o n s o f d e f e n d a n t s w e r e d e n i e d , and
they appealed t o t h i s Court.
brief
A t r o u g h l y t h e same t i m e a s d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d t h e i r r e p l y /
with t h i s Court, one of defendants discovered c e r t a i n o f f i c i a l
r e c o r d s of P a r k County and moved t h i s C o u r t f o r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n
o f new e v i d e n c e o r removal t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r
proceedings. Hearing w a s h e l d on t h i s motion J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1975.
On J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1975, t h i s C o u r t , i n a p e r c u r i a m o r d e r , remanded
t h e c a u s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o p e r m i t de-
f e n d a n t s t o f i l e a motion f o r a new t r i a l upon t h e ground o f
newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e .
Rehearing w a s h e l d on March 1 7 , 1975, i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , P a r k County, w i t h o u t a j u r y . Defendants i n t r o d u c e d e v i -
d e n c e o f a c o u n t y r o a d from S p r i n g d a l e t o Mendenhall i n 1890, t o
prove t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e p r e s e n t county road a t i t s p r e s e n t
l o c a t i o n and e q u a t i n g i t t o t h e wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n t h e
deeds. P l a i n t i f f s challenged t h i s evidence with testimony
o f a l i c e n s e d l a n d s u r v e y o r and t h e 1900 P a r k County assess-
ment r o l l s f o r L o t 5.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t awarded judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s and
defendants appeal.
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t a r e :
1. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e 1886
wagon r o a d was t h e same "wagon r o a d " a s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1899
and 1903 d e e d s , t h e r e b y f a i l i n g t o determine t h a t defendants
own a l l of Lot 5 east o f t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d ?
2. Did p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t
a c q u i e s c e i n and a c c e p t t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d a s t h e boundary
l i n e between t h e r e s p e c t i v e p o r t i o n s o f L o t 5?
3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d t h e
p r o p e r l o c a t i o n o f t h e "wagon r o a d " t h r o u g h L o t 5 i n t h e y e a r s
1899 and 1903 was a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e P a r k County o f f i c i a l r e c o r d s
d i s c o v e r e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e f i r s t judgment and i n t r o d u c e d a t
t h e second h e a r i n g ?
4. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err when i t f a i l e d t o f i n d
p l a i n t i f f s knew, p r i o r t o t h e i n i t i a l h e a r i n g , of t h e e v i d e n c e
p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e second h e a r i n g , t h u s f a i l i n g t o
d i s c l o s e t o t h e c o u r t t h e e x i s t e n c e of such records; t h a t such
f a i l u r e w a s m a t e r i a l , m i s l e d t h e c o u r t , was f a l s e and c o n s t i t u t e d
a f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t , and t h a t b e c a u s e of s u c h f a i l u r e , t h e
c o u r t and d e f e n d a n t s w e r e p u t t o much t r o u b l e and expense?
5. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err when it a l l o w e d c e r t a i n
costs t o plaintiffs?
I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and
judgments o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d i f s u p p o r t e d
and j u s t i f i e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . F a u t s c h v . F a u t s c h , 166 Mont. 98,
530 P.2d 1172, 32 S t . R e p . 70; R i c h a r d s o n v . Howard M o t o r s , I n c . ,
163 Mont. 347, 516 P.2d 1153; Harnung v . E s t a t e o f L a g e r q u i s t ,
155 Mont. 412, 473 P.2d 541; Anderson v . Mace, 99 Mont. 421, 45
P.2d 771; Anaconda N a t i o n a l Bank v . J o h n s o n , 75 Mont. 401, 244
P. 1 4 1 . The e v i d e n c e must b e viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e
t o the prevailing party. Bos v . D o l a j a k , Mont . , 534 P.2d
1 2 5 8 , 32 St.Rep. 438; H o l e n s t e i n v . Andrews, 166 Mont. 60, 530
P.2d 476, 32 St.Rep. 4 1 ; Rogers v . H i l g e r C h e v r o l e t Co., 155
Mont. 1, 465 P.2d 834; S t r o n g v . W i l l i a m s , 154 Mont. 65, 460
P.2d 90; B a t c h o f f v . C r a n e y , 1 1 9 Mont. 1 5 7 , 172 P.2d 308.
B e f o r e examining t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t r i a l , w e
t a k e cognizance of t h e s t a t u t o r y r u l e s f o r construing land
descriptions. D e f e n d a n t s r e f e r u s t o s e c t i o n 93-2201-4, R.C.M.
1947, which s t a t e s , i n t e r a l i a :
"The f o l l o w i n g a r e t h e r u l e s f o r c o n s t r u i n g t h e
d e s c r i p t i v e p a r t o f a conveyance o f r e a l p r o p e r t y ,
when t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s d o u b t f u l and t h e r e a r e
no o t h e r s u f f i c i e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o d e t e r m i n e i t :
" 2 . When permanent and v i s i b l e . o r a s c e r t a i n e d
b o u n d a r i e s o r monuments a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
t h e measurement, e i t h e r o f l i n e s , a n g l e s , o r
s u r f a c e s , t h e b o u n d a r i e s o r monuments a r e p a r a -
mount. "
I n Buckley v . L a i r d , 1 5 8 Mont. 483, 491, 493 P.2d 1 0 7 0 ,
t h i s C o u r t q u o t e d t h i s l a n g u a g e from 1 2 Am J u r 2d, B o u n d a r i e s ,
" ' I n surveying a t r a c t of land according t o a
former p l a t o r survey, t h e s u r v e y o r ' s o n l y d u t y
i s t o r e l o c a t e , upon t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e o b t a i n a b l e ,
t h e c o u r s e s and l i n e s a t t h e s a m e p l a c e where
o r i g i n a l l y l o c a t e d by t h e f i r s t s u r v e y o r on t h e
ground. I n making t h e r e s u r v e y , he h a s t h e r i g h t
t o u s e t h e f i e l d n o t e s of t h e o r i g i n a l survey.
The o b j e c t o f a r e s u r v e y i s t o f u r n i s h p r o o f o f
t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e l o s t l i n e s o r monuments, n o t
t o d i s p u t e t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of o r t o c o n t r o l t h e
o r i g i n a l survey. ' "
T h i s i s what t h e s u r v e y o r i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was a s k e d t o d o
and which h e d i d . H e s u r v e y e d t h e o l d wagon r o a d from S p r i n g d a l e
S t a t i o n t o H u n t e r s Hot S p r i n g s , u s i n g t h e f i e l d n o t e s and s u r v e y
map o f t h e 1886 U n i t e d S t a t e s Government Survey. H e a l s o certi-
f i e d no o t h e r r o a d , w h e t h e r o r n o t d e s i g n a t e d a s a wagon r o a d ,
c r o s s e d L o t 5 a t t h e t i m e o f t h e 1886 s u r v e y .
Defendants a l l e g e t h e surveyor ignored t h e c l e a r , e x i s t -
i n g monuments, i . e . t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d , when s u r v e y i n g f o r
t h e wagon r o a d d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e 1899 and 1903 d e e d s . W e disagree,
t h e s u r v e y o r was a s k e d t o f i n d t h e wagon r o a d , and found t h e o n l y
wagon r o a d s o d e s i g n a t e d c r o s s i n g L o t 5 from 1886 t o t h e p r e s e n t
day.
While it i s t r u e t h e 1886 wagon r o a d c r o s s e s L o t 5 i n
a g e n e r a l l y e a s t - w e s t d i r e c t i o n and t h e p o r t i o n s o f L o t 5
p l a i n t i f f s w i s h d e s i g n a t e d a s e a s t and w e s t o f t h e wagon r o a d
a r e n o t t r u e e a s t o r w e s t , o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e two
h e a r i n g s t e n d t o c o n f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment f o r
plaintiffs.
The 1900 P a r k County a s s e s s m e n t r e c o r d s f o r L o t 5 i n d i -
c a t e 27.36 a c r e s w e s t o f t h e wagon r o a d and 29.00 a c r e s e a s t o f
t h e road. Contemporary P a r k County a s s e s s m e n t r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e
p l a i n t i f f s own 24.50 a c r e s i n L o t 5 , b u t t h e r e c o r d shows o n l y
3.4 acres o f L o t 5 l i e s w e s t o f t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d . Unless
w e assume t h e c o u n t y r e c o r d s have been i n c o r r e c t f o r a t l e a s t
75 years, t h e s e records serve a s evidence supporting t h e c o r r e c t -
n e s s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment; e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t e s t i m o n y
i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e a c r e a g e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p o r t i o n s as claimed
by p l a i n t i f f s would a p p r o x i m a t e t h e a s s e s s m e n t r e c o r d s .
The u s e o f t h e t e r m "wagon r o a d " i n t h e d e e d s t e n d s t o
s u p p o r t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e wagon r o a d d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 1886
s u r v e y a s t h e p r o p e r boundary between t h e p a r t i e s ' interests in
L o t 5. Of c o u r s e a l l r o a d s w e r e wagon r o a d s i n 1899 and 1 9 0 3 ,
but not a l l roads w e r e so designated. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s c o u n t y
r o a d s were s o named i n a l l p l a t s , s u r v e y s , and r o a d books
o f f e r e d i n t o evidence. I f t h e s c r i v e n e r intended t h e road
d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e d e e d s t o be t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d , o r a
dedicated county road a t roughly t h e p r e s e n t r o a d ' s l o c a t i o n ,
he would have s a i d c o u n t y r o a d i n t h e d e e d s .
Upon examining t h e r e c o r d , we f i n d t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e , when viewed i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l -
i n g p a r t y , s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and judgments of
the d i s t r i c t court.
W e n e x t c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e of a c q u i e s c e n s e on t h e p a r t
of p l a i n t i f f s t o t h e p r e s e n t c o u n t y r o a d s e r v i n g a s t h e boundary
between t h e e a s t and w e s t p o r t i o n s of L o t 5 .
What i s " a c q u i e s c e n c e " ? A h e l p f u l d e f i n i t i o n i s found
i n Pence v . Langdon, 9 9 U.S. 578, 25 L.Ed. 420, 421:
" ' A c q u i e s c e n s e and w a i v e r a r e always q u e s t i o n s
of f a c t . There c a n be n e i t h e r w i t h o u t knowledge.
* * * One c a n n o t waive or a c q u i e s c e i n a wrong
w h i l e i g n o r a n t t h a t it h a s been committed. * * *
There must be knowledge of f a c t s which w i l l e n a b l e
t h e p a r t y t o t a k e e f f e c t u a l a c t i o n . Nothing s h o r t
o f t h i s w i l l do. When f u l l y a d v i s e d , h e must
d e c i d e and a c t w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i s p a t c h . ' "
T h i s r e m a i n s t h e law of a c q u i e s c e n c e , a s i n d i c a t e d i n 1 2 Am J u r
2d B o u n d a r i e s , S85:
"With r e g a r d t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a common
boundary l i n e , a c q u i e s c e n c e means a c o n s e n t t o
t h e c o n d i t i o n s and i n v o l v e s knowledge of them
* * *.*I
See a l s o : Houplin v . S t o e n , 72 Wash.2d 1 3 1 , 431 P.2d 998.
The r u l e s l a i d down i n Hoar v . Hennessy, 2 9 Mont. 253, 74
P. 452; Borgeson v . Tubb, 54 Mont. 557, 172 P. 326; T i l l i n g e r v .
F r i s b i e , 132 Mont. 583, 318 P.2d 1079; a r e s u f f i c i e n t f o u n d a t i o n
f o r t h e u s e of t h e Pence d e f i n i t i o n i n Montana.
I n a p p l y i n g t h e Pence d e f i n i t i o n o f " a c q u i e s c e n c e " t o t h e
i n s t a n t case, w e f i n d p l a i n t i f f s did not acquiesce t o t h e present
c o u n t y r o a d s e r v i n g as t h e boundary between t h e e a s t and w e s t p o r t i o n s
of Lot 5 . The r e c o r d s show p l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n t s a c c e p t e d
t h e p r e s e n t county road a s t h e boundary between t h e i r l a n d s f o r
over 30 y e a r s b u t t h i s was n o t acquiescence on t h e p a r t of
p l a i n t i f f s , a s t h e y were i g n o r a n t of t h e f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h e
p r e s e n t county road i s n o t t h e t r u e boundary. When p l a i n t i f f s
became " f u l l y a d v i s e d " of t h e f a c t s , t h e y a c t e d "with r e a s o n a b l e
d i s p a t c h " t o e s t a b l i s h t h e t r u e boundaries.
Defendants a l l e g e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d -
i n g t h e p r e s e n t county road t o be t h e t r u e boundary, based on
t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e h e a r i n g . The r e c o r d
i n d i c a t e s t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e h e a r i n g d i d n o t d i s -
prove t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e 1886 wagon road a s t h e t r u e boundary.
The evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e r e h e a r i n g c o n s i s t e d of an 1890
road book and a viewer r e p o r t of a "County Road from S p r i n g d a l e
t o Mendenhall''. N evidence of t h e d e d i c a t i o n of t h i s road was
o
introduced. I n f a c t , t h e r e c o r d shows, t h i s r o a d ' s l o c a t i o n was
n o t t h e e x a c t l o c a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n t county road. The Park
County assessment r e c o r d , d i s c u s s e d h e r e t o f o r e , a l s o does n o t
i n d i c a t e t h e p r e s e n t county r o a d a s t h e t r u e boundary.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n concluding t h e e v i d e n c e
i n t r o d u c e d by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e r e h e a r i n g was n o t r e l e v a n t nor
m a t e r i a l t o t h e e x i s t e n c e and l o c a t i o n of t h e "wagon r o a d " ,
d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e 1899 and 1903 deeds.
Defendants a l l e g e p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t o t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e 1890 r e c o r d s , t h e r e b y c a u s i n g
a f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t , a s t h e f a i l u r e was m a t e r i a l and m i s l e d
the court.
P l a i n t i f f s admit t o knowledge of t h e 1890 r e c o r d s p r i o r
t o t h e o r i g i n a l hearing. P l a i n t i f f s t e s t i f i e d the records w e r e
n o t brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e c o u r t , because t h e y d i d n o t
b e l i e v e t h e 1890 r e c o r d s r e l e v a n t t o t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e "wagon
road". The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e s e r e c o r d s n o t r e l e v a n t o r
m a t e r i a l t o t h e wagon r o a d c o n t r o v e r s y , t h u s p l a i n t i f f s ' failure
t o b r i n g them t o t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n c o u l d n o t be m i s l e a d i n g
o r a f r a u d on t h e c o u r t .
Defendants a l l e g e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g
certain costs to plaintiffs. The c o s t s c h a l l e n g e d are: (1) t h e
f e e s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f summons; ( 2 ) p r e p a r a t i o n o f maps and
s u r v e y s ; and ( 3 ) c o p i e s o f d e p o s i t i o n s p u r c h a s e d by p l a i n t i f f s
f o r t r i a l preparation.
S e c t i o n 93-8618, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :
"A p a r t y t o whom c o s t s a r e awarded i n a n a c t i o n i s
e n t i t l e d t o include i n h i s b i l l of c o s t s h i s
necessary disbursements, a s follows: * * * t h e
expenses of t a k i n g d e p o s i t i o n s ; t h e l e g a l f e e s f o r
p u b l i c a t i o n when p u b l i c a t i o n i s d i r e c t e d * * * t h e
l e g a l f e e s p a i d s t e n o g r a p h e r s f o r p e r diem o r f o r
c o p i e s * * * t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s f o r making a
map o r maps i f r e q u i r e d , and n e c e s s a r y t o be u s e d
on t r i a l o r h e a r i n g * * *".
The p u b l i c a t i o n f e e s a r e a l l o w e d by s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y
p r o v i s i o n , t h u s t h e s e c o s t s were p r o p e r l y c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s .
The c o s t of p r e p a r a t i o n o f maps and s u r v e y s a r e a l l o w e d
where n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n t h e s i t u a t i o n . Kelly v. C i t y of Butte,
4 4 Mont. 1 1 5 , 119 P. 171; P e r k i n s v . S t e p h e n s , 1 3 1 Mont. 1 3 8 , 308
P.2d 620. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e maps a s s i s t e d t h e c o u r t i n
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e and l o c a t i o n o f t h e wagon r o a d . Both
p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e maps i n t o e v i d e n c e .
The r e a s o n a b l e c o s t f o r p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e maps e n t e r e d i n t o
e v i d e n c e s h a l l be a l l o w e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o
d e t e r m i n e whether any p a r t o f t h e map and s u r v e y c o s t s b i l l e d by
p l a i n t i f f s a r o s e from s u r v e y s o r maps o f p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y
o u t s i d e L o t 5 o r d i d n o t p e r t a i n t o t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e "wagon
road". Any such u n n e c e s s a r y expense s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d a s c o s t s
charged t o defendants.
The c o p i e s of d e p o s i t i o n s p u r c h a s e d by p l a i n t i f f s f o r
t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n w e r e s o l e l y f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' b e n e f i t and c a n n o t
be c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s . Davis v . Trobough, 139 Mont. 322,
363 P.2d 727.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , w i t h t h e
e x c e p t i o n o f t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c o s t s c h a r g e d t o d e f e n d a n t s ,
which s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h directions n e r e l n .
Chief J u s t i c e