Coleman v. Perry
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
— This cause was brought into this court upon appeals from the judgment, and an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. A motion has been submitted by Respondent to dismiss the appeals on the ground *238 that the undertaking is void for ambiguity. This instrument is identical in form with that considered in Baker v. Butte City Water Co., 24 Mont. 31, 113 , 60 Pac. 488, 817 . It was not held in that case, as respondent contends, that such an undertaking is void, but only that it is merely insufficient or imperfect, in that, though it refers to both appeals, it does not contain alternative conditions referring to each separately, so as to bind the sureties to meet all the contingencies which may arise in the disposition of the case by this court. The appellants having filed with the clerk of this court a good and sufficient undertaking, approved by the chief justice, before the motion to dismiss was heard, the motion must be denied. (Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1740; Woodman v. Calkins, 12 Mont. 456 , 31 Pac. 63 , cited in Greeks. Bozeman Waterworks Co., 22 Mont. 327 , 56 Pac. 362 .)
Denied.
Mr. Justice Hunt, being absent, takes no part in the foregoing decision.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.