Blonde v. Merriam
Wyoming Supreme Court
Error to the District Court, Fremont County, Hon. Charles E. Carpenter, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The striking of the motion for a new trial from the files was equivalent to overruling and denying the same, so that if the order striking the motion was error the court may here consider the questions presented by said motion, under the assignments of error.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Fremont County, Hon. Charles E. Carpenter, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The striking of the motion for a new trial from the files was equivalent to overruling and denying the same, so that if the order striking the motion was error the court may here consider the questions presented by said motion, under the assignments of error. Since the decision of Kent v. Upton, .3 Wyo. 43, holding that the time for filing motion for new trial cannot be extended upon an ex parte application without a showing that the party was unavoidably prevented from…
1Opinion of the Court
Potter, Justice.
The plaintiff in error, Charles E. Blonde, was the defendant in the District Court. It appears that a partnership had existed between him and the plaintiffs below, Edward Merriam and William Madden, and that the same had terminated, and the action was brought for an accounting and to recover the amount which might be found to be due the plaintiffs from the defendant, the petition alleging a stated amount to be due. Upon the evidence, which was taken before a special master commissioner, and reported to the court with the commissioner’s findings, the defendant was found by the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Dickson v. WaldronIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Evansville & Richmond Railroad v. MadduxIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- McIntosh v. ZaringIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- Joiner v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Fox v. MeachamNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kowlak v. Tensleep Merc. Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1929
- Roy E. Hays Co. v. AllenWyoming Supreme Court · 1930