Legal Opinion

Alder Gulch Con. Mining Co. v. Hayes

Montana Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1886PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from First District, Madison Gounty. The opinion states the facts.

1Opinion of the CourtGalbraith, J.

"We would be warranted in refusing to determine this cause, for the reason that it does not comply with the rule of this court as to the mechanical method of its presentation. It should not. have been filed with the clerk. But on account of its importance we have concluded to consider it.

It is an appeal from a judgment. The evidence has been stricken out of the transcript. But even if it were not, it would not be considered on this appeal from the judgment alone. To enable us to look into the evidence, and to determine whether or not the findings of the court were supported thereby, a motion…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Atchison v. PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Chumasero v. VialMontana Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Allport v. KelleyMontana Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Nevada Water Co. v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  5. Columbia Mining Co. v. HolterMontana Supreme Court · 1871

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Union Mill & Mining Co. v. DangbergU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1897
  2. Rock Creek Ditch & Flume Co. v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Emerson v. Eldorado Ditch Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Head v. HaleMontana Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Brownell v. McCormickMontana Supreme Court · 1887

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API