Case ID: mont_24/html/0242-01.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

MAHONEY, Respondent, v. BUTTE HARDWARE CO., Appellant. BOUCHER, Respondent v. BARSALOU et al., Appellants. TEAGUE, Respondent v. JOHN CAPLICE CO., Appellant.
    [No. 1,364.]
    [No. 1,411.]
    [No. 1,501.]
    
      Mr. F. T. McBride, and Mr. B. Noon, for Appellant.
    
      Messrs. McHatton & Cotter, for Respondent.
    
      Mr. Robert McBride and Mr. W. J. Naughten, for Appellants.
    
      Messrs. McHatton <& Cotter, for Respondent.
    
      Mr. Jesse B. Roote, for Appellant.
    
      Mr. W. W. Dixon and Messrs. McHatton c& Cotter for .Respondent.
    
      On Motions to Dismiss Appeals.
    
    
      Denied.
    
    [Decided June 7, 1900.]
    For Syllabus see, Ramsey v. Burns et al ante p. 234.
   PER CURIAM.

— The respondents in each of these cases move a dismissal of the appeals upon the ground that the undertaking in each is void for ambiguity. The appeals are from judgments and orders refusing new trials. Each undertaking is in form and substance like the undertaking considered in Watkins v. Morris, 14 Mont. 354, 36 Pac. 452, and Ramsey, v. Burns, 24 Mont. 234, 61 Pac. Rep. 129. Upon the authority of Watkins v. Morris, and Ramsey v. Burns, supra, the motions must be denied, and it is so ordered.

Denied.