Midland National Bank v. Hegna

Montana Supreme Court

Midland National Bank v. Hegna

219 P. 628, 68 Mont. 544, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 188

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1923

DocketNo. 5,292

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 219 P. 628 (Midland National Bank v. Hegna) 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

Midland National Bank v. Hegna, 219 P. 628, 68 Mont. 544, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 188 (Mo. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE GALEN

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff bank to recover from the defendant $3,000 and interest upon a promissory note executed September 2, 1921, to the E. L. Welch Company, which note it is alleged was indorsed and delivered before maturity, in due course, to the plaintiff. Upon issue joined by answer and reply the case was tried before a jury. Judgment appears to have been entered in favor of the plaintiff as prayed upon a directed verdict: The appeal is from the judgment.

The defendant’s assignments of error are as follows:

“(1) The court erred in granting respondent’s motion to [1] place the burden of proof upon appellant immediately upon the introduction of the note in evidence by respondent without any further proof.

“(2) The court erred in sustaining respondent’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of appellant’s evidence.”

As the record contains no bill of exceptions, we are unable to inquire into the merits of these assignments. We have nothing before us, save the judgment-roll. The minute entries of the court incorporated in the record, save as to the court’s ruling on demurrer to the answer, are not a part of the judgment-roll, and, even were the matters shown thereby embodied in a bill of exceptions, they would not in any manner aid this court in determining the merit, if any, in the errors assigned by the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

'Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Callaway and Associate Justices Cooper, Holloway and Stark concur.

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

MR. JUSTICE GALEN

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff bank to recover from the defendant $3,000 and interest upon a promissory note executed September 2, 1921, to the E. L. Welch Company, which note it is alleged was indorsed and delivered before maturity, in due course, to the plaintiff. Upon issue joined by answer and reply the case was tried before a jury. Judgment appears to have been entered in favor of the plaintiff as prayed upon a directed verdict: The appeal is from the judgment.

The defendant’s assignments of error are as follows:

“(1) The court erred in granting respondent’s motion to [1] place the burden of proof upon appellant immediately upon the introduction of the note in evidence by respondent without any further proof.

“(2) The court erred in sustaining respondent’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of appellant’s evidence.”

As the record contains no bill of exceptions, we are unable to inquire into the merits of these assignments. We have nothing before us, save the judgment-roll. The minute entries of the court incorporated in the record, save as to the court’s ruling on demurrer to the answer, are not a part of the judgment-roll, and, even were the matters shown thereby embodied in a bill of exceptions, they would not in any manner aid this court in determining the merit, if any, in the errors assigned by the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

'Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Callaway and Associate Justices Cooper, Holloway and Stark concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 P. 628, 68 Mont. 544, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midland-national-bank-v-hegna-mont-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack