Montana Mausoleum Co. v. Fava

215 P. 515, 66 Mont. 128, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 69
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 10, 1923
DocketNo. 5,024
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 215 P. 515 (Montana Mausoleum Co. v. Fava) 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
Montana Mausoleum Co. v. Fava, 215 P. 515, 66 Mont. 128, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 69 (Mo. 1923).

Opinion

MR. COMMISSIONER FELT

prepared the opinion for the court.

The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for the sum of $199.50 and costs, upon a written contract to pay for two crypts in the Community Mausoleum to be erected at Billings, Montana. The complaint sets forth the contract, and pleads such facts as were necessary to establish liability on the part of the defendant for the amount recovered.- The answer is in effect a general denial, together with allegation of fraud in the inducement, and certain allegations from which it might be inferred that there had been alteration of the instrument upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action is based.

The appeal purports to be from the judgment and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The transcript on appeal contains the pleadings, verdict, judgment, and notice of appeal. It also contains what is denominated a bill of exceptions, containing testimony of witnesses and rulings of the court rejecting certain offers of proof made by the defendant. This bill of exceptions does not appear to have been settled, nor is the record thereof authenticated in any manner. We cannot consider this for any purpose. The complaint is sufficient to justify the verdict and judgment. It is only from the notice of appeal that we may gather that there was a motion for a new trial. The motion and the order overruling same are not before us.

[130]*130We therefore recommend that the appeal from the order overruling the motion for a new trial be dismissed, and that ■the judgment be affirmed.

Per Curiam :

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the appeal from the order overruling the motion for a new •trial is dismissed, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Nissen v. Western Construction Equipment Co.
320 P.2d 997 (Montana Supreme Court, 1958)
Miners Nat. Bank v. Proulx
176 P.2d 267 (Montana Supreme Court, 1946)
Bohon v. Bitter Root Sales Co.
266 P. 645 (Montana Supreme Court, 1928)
Putnam v. Doney
253 P. 270 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
Atkinson v. Roosevelt County
227 P. 811 (Montana Supreme Court, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 P. 515, 66 Mont. 128, 1923 Mont. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montana-mausoleum-co-v-fava-mont-1923.