Sherman v. Higgins
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Meagher County. It appears that within the time limited, motion for a new trial was made, together with an application under section 114 (sec. 116, Comp. Stats. 1887) of the Civil Code, for the vacation of the judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Meagher County. It appears that within the time limited, motion for a new trial was made, together with an application under section 114 (sec. 116, Comp. Stats. 1887) of the Civil Code, for the vacation of the judgment. This application is based upon the affidavits of the defendant and his counsel, together with the certificate of the defendant's physician, from which it appears that the defendant was by reason of ill health unable to present at the trial of the case. There was no want of diligence on the part of the defendant, but on the contrary, the record…
1Opinion of the CourtMcLeary, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Meagher County, rendered on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1887, against the defendant, for one thousand dollars and costs of suit. The amended complaint was filed on the eighth day of April, 1886, and was duly followed by answer and replication.. On the 25th of March, 1887, the defendant made an application, through his attorney, William Wallace, Jr., for a continuance of the cause, which was overruled by the court and the cause submitted to a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment followed accordingly.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kleinschmidt v. McAndrewsMontana Supreme Court · 1881
- Noteware v. SternsMontana Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by5 opinions
- Newell v. MeyendorffMontana Supreme Court · 1890
- Kleinschmidt v. McDermottMontana Supreme Court · 1892
- Montana Lumber & Produce Co. v. HowardMontana Supreme Court · 1891
- Authier v. Bennett Bros.Montana Supreme Court · 1895
- Rodoni v. LytleMontana Supreme Court · 1893