Case ID: mont_23/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANDERSON, Respondent, v. CARLSON, Appellant.
    [No. 1,244.]
    [Submitted May 22, 1899.
    Decided June 12, 1899.]
    
      Appeal — Briefs—Buies of Supreme Court — Dismissal.
    Where the brief of defendant does not contain specifications of errors, nor abstract, nor-statement of the case, as required by the Supreme Court, Rule 5, Subdivision 3, the appeal -will be dismissed.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Deer Lodge County; Theo. Brantly, Judge.
    
    Action by John Anderson against Charles Carlson. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    Dismissed.
    
      Mr. J. S. Duffy, for Appellant.
    
      Messrs. Sawyer <& Walsh, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

— The defendant appeals from a judgment-against him, and from an order refusing a new trial. The plaintiff moves a dismissal of the appeals upon the ground that the brief of the defendant does not conform to Subdivision 3 of Rule V of this court. Inspection of the brief discloses neither specification of errors, nor abstract, nor statement of the case. The appeals must therefore, under the authority of Gibson v. Hubbard, 22 Mont. 517, 57 Pac. 88, and of the cases therein cited, be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly, being disqualified, took no part in this decision.