Case Name: HIATT, Appellant, v. KELLY et al., Respondents
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1923-03-29
Citations: 66 Mont. 607
Docket Number: No. 5,072
Parties: HIATT, Appellant, v. KELLY et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
HIATT, Appellant, v. KELLY et al., Respondents.
(No. 5,072.)
(Submitted March 6, 1923.
Decided March 29, 1923.)
[214 Pac. 66.]
'Appeal — Record — Brief — Nonobservance of Supreme Court Rules—Penalty.
1. Nouobservauce of the supreme court rule requiring the testimony in the transcript to be in narrative form, and of that making it incumbent upon appellant in his brief to present a concise abstract or statement of the case, such abstract to refer to the page numbers in the transcript in such manner that pleadings, evidence, etc., may be easily found, is sufficient ground for dismissal of the appeal or affirmance of the judgment or order appealed from.
Appeal from, District Court, Fergus County; Roy F. Ayers, Judge.
Action by James Hiatt against G. H. Kelly and others doing business as copartners under the firm name of Kelly & Jackson, and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and, from an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
Mr. F. K. Cheadle, for Appellant, submitted a brief, and argued the cause orally.
Messrs. Belden & De Kalb and Mr. Merle C. Groene, for Respondents, submitted a brief; Mr. H, Leonard De Kalb argued the cause orally.

Opinion:
MR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER LAW
prepared the opinion for the court.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. On January 11, 1923', nine and one-half months after the transcript had been filed in this court, appellant's counsel asked and was granted a suspension of the rule requiring the tran script to be printed. An examination of the record be fore us, however, discloses that he has made no effort whatever to comply with paragraph 3 of Rule YII (64 Mont. Ixiv, 202 Pac. ix) or subdivision (a) of paragraph 3 of Rule X of this court (Id. lxviii). Such nonobservance of the rules is just and proper reason for a dismissal of the appeal or an affirmance of the order appealed from. (Samuell v. Moore Merc. Co., 62 Mont. 232, 204 Pac. 376; Cobb v. Warren, 64 Mont. 10, 208 Pac. 928; McConnell v. Blackley, ante, p. 510, 214 Pac. 64.)
We therefore recommend that the order appealed from be affirmed.
Per Curiam:
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.