Nichols v. Dobbins
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from. Second, District, Missoula Oou/nt/y. The motion for a new trial was overruled by Knowles, J. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Tbe initial, not the full name, of plaintiff is stated. Wiébbold v. Hermann, post, 609. The complaint claims damages because appellant permitted his cattle to roam at large and break through respondent’s fence and injure his crop.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. Second, District, Missoula Oou/nt/y. The motion for a new trial was overruled by Knowles, J. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Tbe initial, not the full name, of plaintiff is stated. Wiébbold v. Hermann, post, 609. The complaint claims damages because appellant permitted his cattle to roam at large and break through respondent’s fence and injure his crop. Appellant was not guilty of negligence in allowing his cattle to roam at large; this was his right. Appellant is not liable for damages done by cattle while roaming at large. Smith v.…
1Opinion of the CourtWade, C. J.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion for a new trial There is only one exception in the record and that was not properly saved. The transcript contains the complaint and a demurrer thereto, which does not appear to have been acted on by the court; the answer; the instructions to which there were no exceptions; the verdict and judgment; the motion for a new trial and order overruling the same, to which the appellant excepted but filed no bill of exceptions. There is no evidence in the record, and the grounds of the motion for a new trial, that “ the evidence was insufficient to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thompson v. MattuschekMontana Supreme Court · 1959
- Boyd v. PlatnerMontana Supreme Court · 1884