State Ex Rel. Neilson v. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:

(dissenting).

I do not agree that section 93-2301-6 gives the legal reason for perpetuating testimony. It simply provides when the evidence becomes admissible if and when a trial be had between the expectant parties.

Section 93-2301-2, R. C. M. 1947, sets forth what must be alleged in the petition in order to obtain an order for the perpetuation of testimony. The petition here complied with this statute.

That being so, there was nothing left for the judge to do but to make the order which he did. State ex rel. Holcomb v. District Court, 54 Mont. 574, 172 Pac. 329; State ex…