Case Name: L. W. HAGEMAN, doing business as HAGEMAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCES STROBEL, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1959-11-19
Citations: 136 Mont. 618
Docket Number: No. 9896
Parties: L. W. HAGEMAN, doing business as HAGEMAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCES STROBEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: MR. JUSTICES ANGSTMAN and CASTLES concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
No. 9896.
L. W. HAGEMAN, doing business as HAGEMAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCES STROBEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Submitted November 5, 1959.
Decided November 19, 1959.
346 Pac. (2d) 973.
Rehearing Denied December 15, 1959.
Wellington D. Rankin and Arthur P. Acher, Helena, for appellant. Arthur P. Acher argued orally.
Fred N. Dugcm, Billings, argued orally, for respondent.

Opinion:
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON:
Appeal from an order denying motion for change of place of trial upon the ground that the defendant cannot have an impartial trial in Sweet Grass County. Complaint in this cause was filed November 15, 1955; motion for change of place of trial filed February 13, 1957. On June 27, 1957, attorney for the plaintiff gave notice calling up the motion for hearing on July 3, 1957. The matter was submitted by the defendant upon affidavits, being copies of tbe affidavits filed in Little v. Strobel, 136 Mont. 272, 346 Pac. (2d) 971. Plaintiff called two witnesses. On September 30, 1957, the district judge denied the motion and notice of appeal was filed on November 29, 1957.
Since the defendant used the same affidavits in this cause as in Little v. Strobel, supra, and made the same contentions herein, what is said in that opinion applies with equal force here.
While defendant further contends that in this cause the showing of prejudice was uncontroverted by the plaintiff, we disagree with such conclusion.
Finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court, the order denying the motion for change of place of trial is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICES ANGSTMAN and CASTLES concur.