State ex rel. Centennial Brewing Co. v. District Court

133 P. 679, 47 Mont. 547, 1913 Mont. LEXIS 63
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1913
DocketNo. 3,328
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 P. 679 (State ex rel. Centennial Brewing Co. v. District Court) 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
State ex rel. Centennial Brewing Co. v. District Court, 133 P. 679, 47 Mont. 547, 1913 Mont. LEXIS 63 (Mo. 1913).

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY

delivered the opinion of the court.

On March 21, 1913, an action in unlawful detainer was commenced in the district court of Silver Bow county, by the Centennial Brewing Company against O. Rouleau and Louis Tetreault, and such proceedings were had that upon the trial a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants. Thereupon counsel for plaintiff requested the district court to render judgment upon the verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, and as a part of the judgment to treble the damages. This request was refused and the court rendered and had entered a jud.gment in favor of the plaintiff for the restoration of the premises in controversy and for damages as found in the verdict and for costs.

[548]*548In effect, we are asked by the writ of mandate to correct [1] tbe judgment entered by the district court, but such is not the office of the writ. (State ex rel. Montana Central Ry. Co. v. District Court, 32 Mont. 37, 79 Pac. 546.)

Assuming that the circumstances are such that mandamus would issue if the plaintiff in the action in the district court had no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy, we would do a grave injustice to other litigants before this court if we permitted this relator here to invoke the remedy by mandamus to secure an early hearing of its controversy, while others who pursue the remedy by appeal are compelled to wait. Every question sought to be presented in this proceeding can be reviewed by appeal, and the remedy by appeal is plain, speedy and adequate. Under such circumstances mandamus will not lie. (Sec. 7215, Rev. Codes.)

The proceeding is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Sanner concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Malone v. District Court
241 P. 240 (Montana Supreme Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 P. 679, 47 Mont. 547, 1913 Mont. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-centennial-brewing-co-v-district-court-mont-1913.