Case Name: REHBERG, Respondent v. GREISER, Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1900-11-26
Citations: 24 Mont. 487
Docket Number: No. 1255
Parties: REHBERG, Respondent v. GREISER, Appellant.
Judges: Mr. Justice Word, being absent, takes no part in this decision.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 487–494

Head Matter:
REHBERG, Respondent v. GREISER, Appellant.
[No. 1255.]
[Submitted November l, 1900.
Decided November 26, 1900.]
Appeal — Rules of the Supreme Court — Briefs—Specification of Errors.
Where appellant’s brief does not contain a specification of the errors relied on, numbered and set out separately and particularly, as provided by Sup. Ct. Rule 10, See. 3, Subd. “b” the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.
ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
1. The rules of the Supreme Court demaDd that any error intended to be urged by appellant must be particularly specified, and all the errors specified must be grouped together and must constitute a division of appellant’s brief separate and distinct from the statement of the case and from the argument, and without such proper specification the appellant is in no position to demand that any supposed error be considered by the appellate court.
2. The distinctions which the statutes draw, and the cases recognize between “exceptions” to verdicts or decisions on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the same, and to errors in law occurring at the trial, pertain to the procedure in the district courts uponmotions for new trials and in no wise aftect the rule of the supreme court requiring the errors relied upon in the latter court to be specified in appellant’s brief.
3. The fact, that failure to comply with the requirements of its rules has been occasionally overlooked or disregarded by the supreme court, furnishes no reason why the practice should be continued.
4. The supreme court has inherent power to affirm or dismiss orders or judgments appealed from when not presented in substantial compliance with its rules.
Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Cla/rhe County; Henry C. Smith, Judge.
Action by Edward Rehberg against Gus Greiser. Eroin a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed
Messrs. Shober efi Rasch, for Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Walsh, for Respondent.

Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE PIGOTT
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover a judgment against the defendant for damages, and for an injunction perpetually restraining him from preventing the one-half of the water flowing through a certain ditch from passing into the ditch of plaintiff. A trial was had by the court sitting with a jury. From the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, the defendant has appealed.
After hearing the oral arguments of counsel, we were clearly of the opinion that the judgment and order refusing a new trial were correct, and that they should be affirmed upon the merits; but we find upon examination of the brief filed in behalf of the appellant that it wholly fails to comply with Sub division "b" of Section 3 of Rule X of the Rules of this Court, in that it does not contain such a specification of errors as is thereby required. There is no attempt to make the brief conformable to the subdivision, which requires that the appellant's brief "shall contain, in the order here stated: (b) A specification of errors relied upon, which shall be numdered and shall set out separately and particularly each error intended to be urged. " Under the now settled and uniform practice of this court, the only disposition which we can make of the appeals is to affirm the judgment and order without discussion of the merits; which is accordingly done. (Charles Schatzlein Paint Co. v. Godin, this day decided, ante p. 483, 62 Pac. 819, and the authorities therein cited.)
[Submitted December 15, 1900. Decided December 17, 1900.]
Affirmed
Mr. Justice Word, being absent, takes no part in this decision.