In re Carroll

Montana Supreme Court

In re Carroll

126 P. 251, 45 Mont. 608, 1912 Mont. LEXIS 82

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1912

DocketNo. 3,184

StatusPublished

This text of 126 P. 251 (In re Carroll) 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

In re Carroll, 126 P. 251, 45 Mont. 608, 1912 Mont. LEXIS 82 (Mo. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It being made to appear by the affidavit of Carrie May Carroll, this day presented to the court, that Jeremiah J. Lynch, the judge of the Second Judicial District who [609]*609tried the cause of Mary Jenkins v. Celia Davis et al., now pending on motion for a new trial in the court of said district, the said Carrie May Carroll being a party thereto, has refused to settle certain bills of exceptions on behalf of said Carrie May Carroll to be used on the motion for a new trial, and that such refusal is based upon his alleged disqualification in the premises by reason of a disqualifying affidavit filed therein since the trial of said cause, it is ordered that the said Lynch, judge as aforesaid, proceed to settle and certify said bills as a part of the record in said cause, notwithstanding his said alleged disqualification.

Messrs. Charles O’Donnell, and W. E. Carroll, for Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

It being made to appear by the affidavit of Carrie May Carroll, this day presented to the court, that Jeremiah J. Lynch, the judge of the Second Judicial District who [609]*609tried the cause of Mary Jenkins v. Celia Davis et al., now pending on motion for a new trial in the court of said district, the said Carrie May Carroll being a party thereto, has refused to settle certain bills of exceptions on behalf of said Carrie May Carroll to be used on the motion for a new trial, and that such refusal is based upon his alleged disqualification in the premises by reason of a disqualifying affidavit filed therein since the trial of said cause, it is ordered that the said Lynch, judge as aforesaid, proceed to settle and certify said bills as a part of the record in said cause, notwithstanding his said alleged disqualification.

Messrs. Charles O’Donnell, and W. E. Carroll, for Petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 P. 251, 45 Mont. 608, 1912 Mont. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carroll-mont-1912.