State v. Gibbs

10 Mont. 210
Montana Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1890·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

JDe Witt, J.

“Appeals are matters of statutory regulation. There must be a substantial compliance with the statute in order to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court. The appellant is charged with the duty of perfecting his appeal in the manner provided by law, and error in this regard affects the jurisdiction of the appellate court.” (Territory v. Hanna, 5 Mont. 246.) The defendant in the case at bar served his notice of appeal upon the clerk of the court. He served upon the attorney prosecuting a notice of appeal from the verdict, nothing more. An appeal from a verdict is unknown in the criminal law of this State, and such notice of appeal is a nullity. There does not appear any appeal, or notice thereof to the attorney prosecuting, from the judgment, or any appealable order. We refer to Territory v. Hanna, supra, and Territory v. Harris, 7 Mont. 384, 429. The appeal is dismissed, but without prejudice to the taking of another appeal.

Blake, O. J., and Harwood, J., concur.

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

State v. Gibbs, 10 Mont. 210 (Mo. 1890).

10 Mont. 210 (State v. Gibbs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Archerd
24 P.2d 5 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Clarke v. Swartz
285 P. 177 (Montana Supreme Court, 1930)
People v. Román
18 P.R. 217 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1912)
Pueblo v. Román
18 P.R. Dec. 219 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1912)
State v. Preston
30 Nev. 301 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1908)
State v. Horner
59 P. 549 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1900)
State v. Mason
45 P. 557 (Montana Supreme Court, 1896)
State v. Whaley
41 P. 852 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)
State v. Malish
39 P. 739 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)
State v. Black
38 P. 674 (Montana Supreme Court, 1894)
State v. Northrup
35 P. 228 (Montana Supreme Court, 1893)
State ex rel. Cope v. Minar
31 P. 723 (Montana Supreme Court, 1892)