Case Name: WM. M. HANLON and ARRO OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. STUART W. HANNAH, GUSTAVE E. LINDHOLM and MARY C. LINDHOLM, Defendants and Appellants, and AINSLEY B. MITCHELL (also known as A. B. MITCHELL), ANNE MITCHELL, and the MITCHELL ROYALTIES COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendants and Respondents
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1950-05-10
Citations: 123 Mont. 615
Docket Number: No. 8894
Parties: WM. M. HANLON and ARRO OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. STUART W. HANNAH, GUSTAVE E. LINDHOLM and MARY C. LINDHOLM, Defendants and Appellants, and AINSLEY B. MITCHELL (also known as A. B. MITCHELL), ANNE MITCHELL, and the MITCHELL ROYALTIES COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendants and Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
No. 8894.
WM. M. HANLON and ARRO OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. STUART W. HANNAH, GUSTAVE E. LINDHOLM and MARY C. LINDHOLM, Defendants and Appellants, and AINSLEY B. MITCHELL (also known as A. B. MITCHELL), ANNE MITCHELL, and the MITCHELL ROYALTIES COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendants and Respondents.
Decided May 10, 1950.
Mr. E. J. McCabe, Great Falls, for Appellant.
Mr. Louis P. Donovan, Shelby and Mr. H. Leonard DeKalb, Lewistown, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Mr. Ralph J. Anderson, Helena, for Defendant and Respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
December 27, 1948, appellants, Stuart W. Hannah, Gustave E. Lindholm, and Mary C. Lindholm, filed notice of appeal from . a judgment made and entered against them June 26, 1948, in the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Petroleum.
January 30, 1950, appellants caused to be filed in this court .transcript on appeal herein.
April 10, 1950, appellants .filed in the office of the clerk of this court their printed brief on appeal, on page 6 whereof they state, "the said judgment should, be. affirmed," and the concluding sentence of said brief reading, "Therefore, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed by this court. ' '
April 17, 1950, respondents filed.in this court a motion for affirmance of the judgment, of the trial court under the provisions of Rule XI of this court and also calling attention to the foregoing statements in appellants' brief and to the fact that appellants therein admit that they are not aggrieved by such judgment.
It is therefore ordered that respondents' motion be granted, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, and that the appeal be and •'it is dismissed.