Case Name: Russell M. HABBESHAW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Neta Carol HABBESHAW, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1966-01-18
Citations: 17 Utah 2d 295
Docket Number: No. 10356
Parties: Russell M. HABBESHAW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Neta Carol HABBESHAW, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: . McDonough, wade and callis-TER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 17
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
409 P.2d 972
Russell M. HABBESHAW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Neta Carol HABBESHAW, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 10356.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Jan. 18, 1966.
Robert W. Hughes, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Francis C. Lund, Salt Lake City, for respondent.

Opinion:
HENRIOD, Chief Justice.
Appeal from a "judgment" (which in reality only was an order denying a motion for a new trial). Affirmed with costs to respondent.
This appeal is abortive, being from the denial of a motion for a new trial.
Nonetheless, parenthetically and dictum-wise, we are at a loss to know why, after the full hearings, testimony, findings, conclusions and judgment in which Mrs. Hab-beshaw appeared to have exhausted her complaints, financial and physical, she should ask for a new trial under Rule 59(a) (4), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. .There appears to be no evidence that could .not have been discovered with reasonable .diligence. The court gave her $2500 for •her attorney. He withdrew before appeal. She got other counsel and we think that there was nothing after the judgment that occurred warranting its vacation.
. McDonough, wade and callis-TER, JJ., concur.
. See Rule 72(a), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Vol. 9, pp. 776 et seq. and annotations thereto.