Case ID: mont_54/html/0421-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HEAVEY, Respondent, v. LADEN, Appellant.
    (No. 3,867.)
    (Submitted January 31, 1918.
    Decided February 11, 1918.)
    [170 Pac. 947.]
    
      Record on Appeal — New Trial Order — Affirmance, When.
    
    Appeal and Error — Record—Review.
    1. On appeal, tbe' supreme court is bound by tbe record as it is presented and cannot consider matters and things not appearing therein.
    Same — New Trial Order — Conflicting Evidence — Afdrmanee.
    2. Where the evidence is in sharp conflict and the order granting a new trial is general in terms, the supreme court will not interfere on appeal.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Beaverhead County; W. A. Clark, Judge.
    
    Action by Rose Heavey against Patrick Laden. Verdict for defendant. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion for,new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Messrs. Pease & Stephenson, for Appellant, submitted a brief; Mr. Harlow P. Pease argued the cause orally.
    
      Messrs. Rodgers & Gilbert, for Respondent, submitted a brief; Mr. Harry G. Rodgers argued the cause orally.
   MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought to recover upon five separate causes of action. The defendant recovered a general verdict, but upon plaintiff’s motion a new trial was granted, and this appeal is from that order.

Appellant concedes that plaintiff was entitled to a new trial of her second and third causes of action, but insists that a new trial of the entire case is not warranted. This court is bound by the record as it is presented, and counsel for appellant cannot insist that we consider remarks made or theories exploited in the lower court, which do not appear in the record.

One ground of the motion was insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. The order granting the motion is general in its terms. The evidence touching the first, fourth and fifth causes of action is in sharp conflict. Upon the authority of Reynolds v. Jones, 53 Mont. 251, 163 Pac. 469, and Fadden v. Butte Miners’ Union, 50 Mont. 104, 147 Pac. 620, the order is affirmed.

’Affirmed,.

Mr. Justice Sanner concurs.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly, being absent, did not hear the argument and takes no part in the foregoing decision.