Case Name: GRIGGS et al., Respondents, v. KALISPEL MERCANTILE COMPANY, Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1894-04-02
Citations: 14 Mont. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: GRIGGS et al., Respondents, v. KALISPEL MERCANTILE COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
GRIGGS et al., Respondents, v. KALISPEL MERCANTILE COMPANY, Appellant.
[Submitted March 6, 1894.
Decided April 2, 1894.]
Appeal—Motion dissolving attachment—Record.—A statement will not ba stricken from a record on appeal from an order overruling a motion to dissolve an attachment, upon the ground that it was not served within the time required by statute for the preparation and service of statements on appeal, where the statement, while not required on such an appeal, contained all the papers necessary to properly present for review the order complained of.
Appeal from Tenth Judicial District, Flathead, County.
On motion to strike from the record a statement on appeal.
Denied.
H. G. Mclntire, and P. J. McLaughlin, for Appellant.
C. H. Foot, and Strevell & Porter, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this case respondents have interposed a motion to strike from the record the statement on appeal, on the alleged ground that such statement was not prepared or served within the time required by law.
It appears that this appeal is taken from an order overruling a motion to quash attachment issued in said action, which order was made on consideration of the affidavit in attachment, and the complaint. On such an appeal it appears that the practice does not strictly require a statement on appeal, but that the record may consist of the order, with the affidavits on which the order was made annexed thereto, properly authenticated as used on the hearing, " in the place of the statement." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437; Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, § 261.) This record, although made in the form and under the name of a statement on appeal, contains the matter required, properly certified by the judge who made the order, as being the affidavit on which the same was made. Respondents' motion is therefore overruled.