Anderson Pressed-Brick Co. v. Dubois & Williams

• Decision Date: 04 June 1894
• Docket Number: 414
• Citation: 37 P. 90,10 Utah 60
• Parties: ANDERSON PRESSED-BRICK CO., A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. DUBOIS & WILLIAMS, APPELLANTS, AND JOSEPH H. SMITH, AND OTHERS, INTERVENORS AND APPELLANTS. [1]
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

37 P. 90

10 Utah 60

ANDERSON PRESSED-BRICK CO., A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. DUBOIS & WILLIAMS, APPELLANTS, AND JOSEPH H. SMITH, AND OTHERS, INTERVENORS AND APPELLANTS. ^[1]

No. 414

Supreme Court of Utah

June 4, 1894

APPEAL from the district court of the fourth judicial district, Hon. James A. Miner, Judge.

Action by the Anderson Pressed-Brick Company against Dubois & Williams, Joseph H. Smith, et al., intervenors, for a balance due for material sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. John W. Judd, for appellants.

Messrs. Evans & Rogers, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The abstract in this case is very imperfect, and in disregard of the rules of this court. It shows the pleadings, verdict, and statement, on motion for a new trial, but it does not appear therefrom that there was any motion made in the trial court for a new trial or any notice of motion given, or that there was a hearing thereon, or any order made by the court in reference to a new trial; nor is there anything in the abstract to indicate that any appeal is taken from the judgment or from any order of the court; nor is there any transcript of the record of the proceedings on file in this court. The proceedings in the case do not sufficiently appear for review. Under such circumstances, this court will dismiss an appeal on its own motion. Comp. Laws 1888, § 3650; Rotch v. Hamilton, 7 Utah 513, 27 P. 694. Considering this case on its merits, however, so far as its history is shown by the abstract, there appears to be no reversible error. The appeal is dismissed.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Petition for a rehearing denied June 25, 1894.

---------