Court Opinion

ID: 9623941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:46:44.215134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:44.367742
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN
(dissenting):
I think this court should not consider the questions here presented until after they have first been presented to and considered by the trial court.
But if we are permitted to consider the questions, I think the strict common-law rule for the holding of terms of court has been abrogated in part in Montana as section 93-315, R. C. M. 1947, will disclose.
The order of the court fixing the terms was specific in stating that the court in Lewis and Clark county “shall always be in session for the transaction of business, except on legal holidays and non-judicial days.” I think whether there ever was *295a “final adjournment of tbe court” witbin tbe meaning of section 94-6314, R. C. M. 1947, depends upon tbe intention of tbe district judges and tbe record bere discloses that they never intended any final adjournments.