Herzog v. Bernard

Montana Supreme Court

Herzog v. Bernard

31 P. 78, 12 Mont. 523, 1892 Mont. LEXIS 69

DecidedSeptember 26, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 31 P. 78 (Herzog v. Bernard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herzog v. Bernard, 31 P. 78, 12 Mont. 523, 1892 Mont. LEXIS 69 (Mo. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

De Witt, J.

This action grew out of the order made by the District Court in Bernard v. Herzog, which order we have just decided should be affirmed. In the case at bar the plaintiff, respondent herein, obtained an injunction against Bernard, restraining him from disposing of the mining stock which he had bought on the execution sale in the case of Bernard v. Herzog. The injunction herein was obtained on the ground that the execution sale in Bernard v. Herzog had been set aside. As it is determined that there was no error in the District Court in setting aside that sale, there is no reason presented why the injunction in this case should not remain. The ground urged for setting it aside was, in effect, that the order made in the other case should be vacated, and with such vacation the injunction in this case should fall.

The order of the District Court granting the injunction herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Blake, C. J., and Harwood, J., concur.

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

De Witt, J.

This action grew out of the order made by the District Court in Bernard v. Herzog, which order we have just decided should be affirmed. In the case at bar the plaintiff, respondent herein, obtained an injunction against Bernard, restraining him from disposing of the mining stock which he had bought on the execution sale in the case of Bernard v. Herzog. The injunction herein was obtained on the ground that the execution sale in Bernard v. Herzog had been set aside. As it is determined that there was no error in the District Court in setting aside that sale, there is no reason presented why the injunction in this case should not remain. The ground urged for setting it aside was, in effect, that the order made in the other case should be vacated, and with such vacation the injunction in this case should fall.

The order of the District Court granting the injunction herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Blake, C. J., and Harwood, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 P. 78, 12 Mont. 523, 1892 Mont. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herzog-v-bernard-mont-1892.