Neihart Lumber Co. v. Anthony

Montana Supreme Court

Neihart Lumber Co. v. Anthony

29 P.2d 1052, 96 Mont. 283, 1934 Mont. LEXIS 22

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1934

DocketNo. 7,195.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 P.2d 1052 (Neihart Lumber Co. v. Anthony) 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

Neihart Lumber Co. v. Anthony, 29 P.2d 1052, 96 Mont. 283, 1934 Mont. LEXIS 22 (Mo. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CALLAWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff brought this action in a justice’s court against defendant upon an account for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff had judgment, upon which a writ of execution issued February 6, 1933. Pursuant to the writ, the sheriff on February 11, 1933, levied upon moneys due defendant from a bank sufficient to satisfy the judgment in full and sheriff’s costs, collected the same, and paid the plaintiff’s attorneys the amount called for in the writ, taking their receipt therefor. Some weeks later the sheriff returned the writ to the justice of the peace as fully satisfied.

On February 16, 1933, the defendant perfected an appeal to the district court from the judgment, and the case came on for trial in due time. After the foregoing facts appeared in evidence, with others not necessary to be mentioned, plaintiff’s counsel moved that the appeal be dismissed, on the ground that, it appearing the judgment had been satisfied before the appeal was taken, the casé was then moot. The court sustained the motion and rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. Upon the entry of the judgment, defendant appealed to this court.

When the cause came on for hearing before us, counsel for the plaintiff orally confessed error. That error was committed against the defendant is apparent. The case was not moot. The satisfaction of the judgment was by legal process and against the will of the defendant. The case is controlled by Anderson v. Border, 87 Mont. 4, 285 Pac. 174. (And see 3 C. J. 675, 2 R. C. L. 65, and Knight v. Marks, 183 Cal. 354, 191 Pac. 531.)

*285 The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court of Cascade county, with direction to grant the defendant a new trial.

Associate Justices Angstman, Matthews, Stewart and Anderson concur.

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

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CALLAWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff brought this action in a justice’s court against defendant upon an account for goods sold and delivered. Plaintiff had judgment, upon which a writ of execution issued February 6, 1933. Pursuant to the writ, the sheriff on February 11, 1933, levied upon moneys due defendant from a bank sufficient to satisfy the judgment in full and sheriff’s costs, collected the same, and paid the plaintiff’s attorneys the amount called for in the writ, taking their receipt therefor. Some weeks later the sheriff returned the writ to the justice of the peace as fully satisfied.

On February 16, 1933, the defendant perfected an appeal to the district court from the judgment, and the case came on for trial in due time. After the foregoing facts appeared in evidence, with others not necessary to be mentioned, plaintiff’s counsel moved that the appeal be dismissed, on the ground that, it appearing the judgment had been satisfied before the appeal was taken, the casé was then moot. The court sustained the motion and rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. Upon the entry of the judgment, defendant appealed to this court.

When the cause came on for hearing before us, counsel for the plaintiff orally confessed error. That error was committed against the defendant is apparent. The case was not moot. The satisfaction of the judgment was by legal process and against the will of the defendant. The case is controlled by Anderson v. Border, 87 Mont. 4, 285 Pac. 174. (And see 3 C. J. 675, 2 R. C. L. 65, and Knight v. Marks, 183 Cal. 354, 191 Pac. 531.)

*285 The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court of Cascade county, with direction to grant the defendant a new trial.

Associate Justices Angstman, Matthews, Stewart and Anderson concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 P.2d 1052, 96 Mont. 283, 1934 Mont. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neihart-lumber-co-v-anthony-mont-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack