28 Mont. 129 | Mont. | 1903
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, as surety, to obtain contribution from the defendant, his cosurety. The defendant had judgment. The plaintiff has appealed' from the judgment and an order denying a new1 trial.
’ 1. Upon the appeal from the order, the errors assigned are ulppn the rulings of the court in excluding certain evidtence offered by the plaintiff, and) in striking, out a certain statement made by the defendant when testifying in his own behalf. The evidence offered and excluded wasi neither, relevant to, nor did it tend in any way to establish, the cause of action alleged in the complaint. It related wholly, to matters alleged in the answer by way of affirmative defense. The plaintiff cannot complain because he was not permitted to introduce in chief evidence
2. We cannot consider any. error assigned upon the appeal from the judgment, for the reason that the record does not show that any judgment has been entered in the case in the court below. To support an appeal, the judgment must not only be entered (Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1722, Session Laws of 1899, p-. 146), but the record on appeal must contain a copy of it (Code of Civil Procedure, See. 1736). The record contains a copy óf a minute entry directing judgment to be entered for the defendant. This order is: not a judgment. (Butte & Boston Con. Mining Co. v. Mont. Ore Pur. Co., 27 Mont. 152, 69 Pac. 714.) This appeal must therefore be dismissed. (Brunell v. Logan, 16 Mont. 307, 40 Pac. 597.)
The appeal from the judgment is' dismissed; the order denying a new trial is affirmed.
Rehearing
O'N Motion eob RehbabiNg.
(Submitted June 6, 1903. Decided June 8, 1903.)
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff has submitted a motion for a. rehearing "herein, in which the point is made that this court was in error in holding. in the original opinion that the evidence excluded was properly excluded because it was offered_in chief, whereas it related' wholly to matters alleged in the answer1 by way of an affirmative defense and should! have been offered, if at, all, by way of rebuttal. It is argued that under a stipulation filed by. counsel at the opening of the trial, the burden was cast upon the plaintiff to avoid the effect of the affirmative matter so set up; in the an
Our attention is nowi called to the fact that the appeal from the order denying a new trial should also havei been dismissed, for the reason that the record; fails to show that judgment had been entered! in the district court and, therefore, that there is noi judgment roll in the record as filed in this court. This course should have been pursued by this court, for upon appeal from an order denying a new trial the record must contain, among other things) a copy of the judgment roll. (Sections 1738 and 1176, Code of Civil Procedure.) No question presented on the appeal from the order denying a new trial was! properly before the court for consideration. The same result is reached, however, in the disposition of the case asi made, and we shall not now reopen it in order to rectify this technical error in practice.
The motion for a rehearing is denied.
Denied.
