Case Name: PATTERSON, Respondent, v. PFOUTS, Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1901-03-19
Citations: 25 Mont. 163
Docket Number: No. 1,304
Parties: PATTERSON, Respondent, v. PFOUTS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
PATTERSON, Respondent, v. PFOUTS, Appellant.
(No. 1,304.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeals.
(Submitted March 19, 1901.
Decided March 19, 1901.)
Appeal — Rules of the Supreme Court — Briefs—Specifications of Error — Dismissal—Affirmance.
When the appellant’s brief is not in substantial conformity with the Rules of the Supreme Court, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the respondent ; in the absence of such motion the Court will affirm the order or judgment appealed from.
Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; John Lindsay, Judge.
Action by W. H. Patterson against W. G. Pfouts. Erom a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Motion to dismiss.
Granted.
Messrs. Corbett & Clayberg and Messrs. Stapleton & Stapleton, for Appellant
Messrs. McHatton & Cotter, for Respondent.

Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE PIGOTT
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent moves that the appeals from the order denying the motion for a new trial and the judgment be dismissed for the reason that the brief of appellant does not conform to the requirements of Subdivision 3 of Rule X of this Court.
Examination of the brief filed in behalf of the appellant discloses that it fails to contain a specification of the error or errors relied upon. We need not consider the other alleged defects in the brief. Upon authority of the numerous cases upon tbis subject, the last being Harrington v. Smith, 25 Montana, 111, 63 Pacific Reporter, 1036, the appeals are dismissed. When the appellant's brief is not in substantial conformity with the rules the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the respondent, pursuant to Subdivision 5 of Rule X, as was done in Anderson v. Carlson, 23 Montana, 43, 57 Pacific Reporter, 439, and in other cases; in the absence of such motion the court will affirm the order or judgment appealed from, as was done in Harrington\ v. Smith, supra, in Rehberg v. Greiser, 24 Montana, 487, 63 Pacific Reporter, 41, and in other instances.
The appeals are dismissed.
Dismissed.