Development Co. v. Brannan

11 Citing cases

  1. Thrasher v. Hodge

    283 P. 219 (Mont. 1929)   Cited 17 times

    ( McKay v. McDougal, 19 Mont. 488, 48 P. 988; State ex rel. Stephens v. Zuck, 67 Mont. 324, 215 P. 806.) The complaint should allege facts to enable the court to determine from the reading of the complaint whether or not plaintiff is without legal remedy, and whether or not he has a substantial estate or interest in property requiring protection, and whether or not the anticipated injury will be irreparable, and the conclusions or opinions of the pleader in this respect will not suffice. (14 R.C.L. 331, 332; note V, 32 A.L.R. 516; Musselshell Cattle Co. v. Woolfolk, 34 Mont. 126, 85 P. 874; California-Michigan L. W. Co. v. Fletcher, 206 Cal. 392, 274 P. 527; Huffman v. Colter, 55 Cal.App. 173, 203 P. 125; Montezuma Imp. Co. v. Simmerly, 181 Cal. 722, 189 P. 100; note (g), 32 A.L.R. 540; Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, (Wyo.) 275 P. 115; LaCassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U.S. 119, 36 L.Ed. 368, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 659; Kellar v. Bullington, 101 Ala. 267, 14 So. 466; Roy v. Moore, 85 Conn. 159, 82 A. 233; see, also, Eisenhauer v. Flynn, 36 Mont. 368, 122 Am. St. Rep. 370, 14 L.R.A. (n.s.) 435, 93 P. 38; Wheeler v. McIntyre, 55 Mont. 295, 175 P. 892.)

  2. State Bank v. Bagley Bros

    44 Wyo. 244 (Wyo. 1932)   Cited 22 times
    In State Bank of Wheatland v. Bagley Brothers, 44 Wyo. 244, 11 P.2d 572, this court held that one who had been made a defendant in an action to foreclose a mortgage and who by his answer had admitted all of plaintiff's claims in the suit, was, although formally so, not an adverse party within the proper construction of Section 89-1705, supra, so as to authorize his cross-examination by the plaintiff.

    Where a case is tried to the court without a jury, and there is sufficient competent evidence to support the court's findings and judgment, the judgment will not be reversed because of the admission of incompetent evidence. Alaska Devel. Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106; Williams, et al. v. Yocum, et al., 37 Wyo. 432; Yount v. Strickland, 17 Wyo. 526; Freeman v. Peterson, (Colo.) 100 P. 600; Arizona etc. Co. v. D. R.G.R.R. Co., 117 P. 730; Chlopeck v. Chlopeck, (Wash.

  3. Dinkelspeel v. Lewis

    62 P.2d 294 (Wyo. 1937)   Cited 5 times

    ) 29 P.2d 641; 20 R.C.L. 823. Questions as to the admission or exclusion of evidence are not argued in appellant's brief, and are therefore waived. Williams v. Yocum, (Wyo.) 263 P. 607; Development Company v. Brannan, (Wyo.) 275 P. 115; Wilde v. Amoretti, 33 P.2d 399. It is respectfully submitted that no error was committed by the trial court and each of the judgments should be affirmed. RINER, Justice.

  4. Huber v. Delong

    91 P.2d 53 (Wyo. 1939)   Cited 3 times

    Sec. 89-3901 R.S. Plaintiff cannot obtain possession by injunction in order to maintain an action to quiet title. Alaska Co. v. Brennen, 40 Wyo. 106. Plaintiff cannot recover on the weakness of his adversary's title. Davis v. Baptist Convention, 45 Wyo. 148. A deed to a person by an assumed name is valid. 18 C.J. 176, 430. Bank v. Plank (Wis.) 124 N.W. 1000. Bank v. Co. (Wash.

  5. School District No. 11 v. Donahue

    55 Wyo. 220 (Wyo. 1940)   Cited 6 times

    Defendant was not entitled to an injunction. Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106; Jones v. MacKenzie, 122 Fed. 390 (C.C.A. 8th). The court properly excluded evidence under defendant's counterclaim.

  6. Hill v. Walters

    100 P.2d 98 (Wyo. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    45 C.J. 665 and cases cited in notes 77 and 78; 20 R.C.L. Section 119, Page 147, and cases cited in notes 10 and 11. Other questions regarding the admissibility of evidence are argued, but as the trial was to the court, the principles announced in Williams v. Yocum, 37 Wyo. 432, 445, 263 P. 607, and Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 119, 275 P. 115, are applicable. We accordingly affirm the judgment under review.

  7. Miracle v. Barker

    59 Wyo. 92 (Wyo. 1943)   Cited 13 times
    In Miracle v. Barker, 59 Wyo. 92, 106-107, 136 P.2d 678, 683, it was said, "If the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff that the value of the services in question was $750 stood uncontradicted, it would not follow that the court would have been bound to give judgment for that amount," and again, at 136 P.2d 684, "`The judgment of the witness is not, as a matter of law, to be accepted by the jury in place of their own.

    As stated before, the case was tried to the court without a jury, and the rule is that in such case the erroneous admission of testimony is not ordinarily ground for a reversal, if there is competent evidence aside from that to sustain the judgment. Williams v. Yokum, 37 Wyo. 432, 263 P. 607 and cases cited; Alaska Development Company v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 119, 275 P. 115; Yount v. Strickland, 17 Wyo. 526, 533, 101 P. 942. That appears to be the general rule. 5 C.J.S. 997. In 26 R.C.L. 1085, the rule is stated thus: "It is the general rule that error will not lie for the admission of irrelevant and incompetent evidence in a case tried before the court without a jury, at least where it does not appear that the court relied on the incompetent evidence in making its decree."

  8. Miller v. Scoggin

    189 P.2d 693 (Wyo. 1948)   Cited 3 times
    In Miller v. Scoggin, 64 Wyo. 248, 189 P.2d 693 (1948), Scoggin claimed his threatened use of a rifle to prevent the movement of running machinery onto a claim was only a bluff.

    It is not necessary that the writ of injunction itself should deny possession to one of the contending parties and give it to another. If the writ, no matter how worded, has that effect and upon the trial such effect is shown, then the writ should not have issued. Casper Wyoming Theatres Co., et al. v. Rex Inv. Co., 37 Wyo. 357; Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106. Only damages which follow naturally and proximately from the actions themselves are recoverable. Damages created without necessity, where there is ample law to determine the question without the damages being created, cannot be recovered.

  9. Rialto Theatre v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc.

    714 P.2d 328 (Wyo. 1986)   Cited 30 times
    Defining a cause of action

    " Although authorized by statute, § 1-28-101 et seq., W.S. 1977, an action for injunction is a form of equitable relief which is not granted as a matter of right, but the issuance of which is addressed to the court's equitable discretion. Kincheloe v. Milatzo, Wyo., 678 P.2d 855 (1984); Lee v. Brown, Wyo., 357 P.2d 1106 (1960); Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 275 P. 115 (1929). This court has previously noted the extraordinary character of the remedy of injunction, and has stated that a court must proceed with caution and deliberation before exercising the remedy.

  10. Feeney v. State

    714 P.2d 1229 (Wyo. 1986)   Cited 6 times
    Stating the trial judge is able to “sift the wheat from the chaff”

    Herman v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, Wyo., 675 P.2d 1271, 1279 (1984). See also In Re Shreve, Wyo., 432 P.2d 271 at 273 (1967); Arnold v. Jennings, 75 Wyo. 463, 296 P.2d 989 (1956); Macy v. Billings, 74 Wyo. 404, 289 P.2d 422 (1955); Miracle v. Barker, 59 Wyo. 92, 136 P.2d 678 (1943); Alaska Development Co. v. Brannan, 40 Wyo. 106, 275 P. 115 (1929). On appeal it is presumed, in cases tried by a court without a jury, that the court in reaching its decision disregarded improperly admitted evidence unless the record affirmatively shows that the trial court's decision was influenced by improperly admitted evidence.