Hiatt v. Kelly

214 P. 66, 66 Mont. 607, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 53

Opinion

MR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER LAW

prepared the opinion for the court.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. On January 11, 1923', nine and one-half months after the transcript had been filed in this court, appellant’s counsel asked and was granted a suspension of the rule requiring the tran script to be printed. An examination of the record be fore us, however, discloses that he has made no effort whatever to comply with paragraph 3 of Rule YII (64 Mont. Ixiv, 202 Pac. ix) or subdivision (a) of paragraph 3 of Rule X of this court (Id. lxviii). Such nonobservance of the rules is just and proper reason for a dismissal of the appeal or an affirmance of the order appealed from. (Samuell v. Moore Merc. Co., 62 Mont. 232, 204 Pac. 376; Cobb v. Warren, 64 Mont. 10, 208 Pac. 928; McConnell v. Blackley, ante, p. 510, 214 Pac. 64.)

We therefore recommend that the order appealed from be affirmed.

Per Curiam:

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.