Case ID: mont_67/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEE CUEIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 5,284.
    F. W. LINGQUIST, Respondent, v. D. T. O’SHEA et al., Appellants.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clark County; W. E. Doorman, Judge.
    
    Decided June 2, 1923.
    
      Mr. Lester E. LoMe, for Appellants.
    
      Mr. Eenry C. Smith, for Eespondent.
   PEE CUEIAM.

The motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal in the above-entitled cause is sustained, for the reason that no undertaking on appeal was filed in the district court within five days after service of notice of appeal as provided by section 9733, Eevised Codes of 1921, and for the further reason that the transcript on appeal was not filed in this court within sixty days after the service of the notice of appeal, nor was the same filed prior to the motion to dismiss the