Anderson Pressed-Brick Co. v. Dubois

Utah Supreme Court

Anderson Pressed-Brick Co. v. Dubois

37 P. 90, 10 Utah 60, 1894 Utah LEXIS 8

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 4, 1894

DocketNo. 414

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 P. 90 (Anderson Pressed-Brick Co. v. Dubois) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson Pressed-Brick Co. v. Dubois, 37 P. 90, 10 Utah 60, 1894 Utah LEXIS 8 (Utah 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The abstract in this case is very imperfect, and in disregard of the rules of this court. It shows the pleadings, verdict, and statement, on motion for a new trial, but it does not appear therefrom that there was any motion made in the trial court for a new trial or any notice of motion given, or that 'there was a hearing thereon, or any order made by the court in reference to a new trial; nor is there anything in the abstract to indicate that any appeal is taken from the judgment or from any [61]*61order of the court; nor is there any transcript of the record of the proceedings on file in this court. The proceedings in the case do not sufficiently appear for review. TJnder such circumstances, this court will dismiss an appeal on its own motion. Comp. Laws 1888, § 3650; Rotch v. Hamilton, 7 Utah, 513, 27 Pac. 694. Considering this case on its merits, however, so far as its history is shown by the abstract, there appears to be no reversible error. The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The abstract in this case is very imperfect, and in disregard of the rules of this court. It shows the pleadings, verdict, and statement, on motion for a new trial, but it does not appear therefrom that there was any motion made in the trial court for a new trial or any notice of motion given, or that 'there was a hearing thereon, or any order made by the court in reference to a new trial; nor is there anything in the abstract to indicate that any appeal is taken from the judgment or from any [61]*61order of the court; nor is there any transcript of the record of the proceedings on file in this court. The proceedings in the case do not sufficiently appear for review. TJnder such circumstances, this court will dismiss an appeal on its own motion. Comp. Laws 1888, § 3650; Rotch v. Hamilton, 7 Utah, 513, 27 Pac. 694. Considering this case on its merits, however, so far as its history is shown by the abstract, there appears to be no reversible error. The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 P. 90, 10 Utah 60, 1894 Utah LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-pressed-brick-co-v-dubois-utah-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack