Case ID: mont_11/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blake, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McLEOD, Respondent, v. DICKENSON, Appellant.
    [Argued January 8, 1892.
    Decided January 11, 1892.]
    
      Aveeai, — Becord—Specification of errors. — An order of the court below overruling a motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed on appeal where no specification of errors or bill of exceptions is contained in the transcript. (Taykr v. Bolter, 2 Mont. 476; Bass v. Bulcer, 6 Mont. 442; Baymond v. Thexton, ? Mont. 299, cited.)
    
      Appeal from, Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County.
    
    Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied by Benton, J0
    
      Jas. P. Lewis, for Appellant.
    
      Baum & Bishop, for Respondent
   Blake, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order overruling the motion for a new trial and the judgment. The transcript does not contain a specification of errors or bill of exceptions, and the action of the court below which is complained of relates solely to a motion for a new trial and cannot be reviewed. The practice of this court has been uniform upon the subject. (Taylor v. Holter, 2 Mont. 476; Bass v. Buker, 6 Mont. 442; Raymond v. Thexton, 7 Mont. 299, and eases cited.) It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the appeal be dismissed without prejudice.

Dismissed,

Harwood, J., and De Witt, J., concur.