We condemn the use of the adversary system and the appellate process for bringing needless litigation or in frustrating the right of an opposing party to a timely hearing on the merits of his case. In Weinheimer v. Scott (1964), 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, this Court, pursuant to its authority under Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P., assessed $500 in damages against the plaintiffs' lawyer who admitted during oral arguments that he was responsible for the delays involved in the case, and for bringing the proceedings which slowed the ultimate resolution of the case. The problem we are faced with here is that we do not know who is responsible for bringing the appeal. Did the client insist on appealing the order denying the motion for a change of venue, or did the lawyer advise the client that considerable delay could be accomplished by appealing the order denying her motion for a change of venue?
" Damages for appeal without merit. If the Supreme Court is satisfied from the record and the presentation of the appeal, that the same was taken without substantial or reasonable grounds, but apparently for purposes of delay, only, such damages may be assessed on determination thereof as under the circumstances are deemed proper." In Weinheimer v. Scott, 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, a case involving appellants' attorney in the instant case, we quoted Libin v. Huffine, supra, with approval and imposed damages of $500 in favor of respondent. These damages were imposed on appellants' attorney for a frivolous appeal. These damages were the cost of travel, research, and preparation to answer the frivolous appeal.
We have previously held that frivolous appeals will not be condoned and to dissuade such practice, damages may be assessed. We refer to Weinheimer v. Scott, 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, and St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 150 Mont. 182, 433 P.2d 795. As a restraint on the activities of petitioners and appellants, we hereby assess damages of $1,000 upon them, to be paid to the plaintiff and respondent within one month after filing of remittitur in the trial court.
[3] In the instant case, where the only issue is an interpretation of our own opinion, we believe the remedy of needless litigation and appeal is not adequate. In Weinheimer v. Scott, 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, wherein a district court dismissed a second case between the same parties on the same issue and in which case this court had previously rendered an opinion, an appeal was taken. Not only did we dismiss the appeal but we assessed costs against counsel for a frivolous appeal. It is not suggested that the instant case is analogous, but that where litigation on a new trial is contrary to our opinion, such a situation gives rise to an exigency and emergency calling for extraordinary relief.
ellant, vs. Metropolitan Sanitary and Storm Sewer District No. 1, a special improvement district, and Dan J. O'Connell, H.J. Johnson, and Gary Garret, County Commissioners of Silver Bow County, Montana, and ex-officio Commissioners of said district, Respondents, the same identical issues pleaded in the Noland case were there pleaded, the same parties were named as defendants, the same counsel appeared for the plaintiffs in both cases, and all issues raised were decided by this court in an Opinion filed on June 28, 1966, and the Noland complaint was thereafter filed in the district court on July 6, 1966, and it would appear that the filing of such complaint constitutes an effort to relitigate the issues decided in the Duffie case, and has been done solely for the purpose of vexation and delay, and that the filing thereof may constitute a contempt of this court; "And it further appearing that this cause may be one wherein the opinions in Gray v. Bohart, 131 Mont. 522, 312 P.2d 529, or Weinheimer v. Scott, 143 Mont. 243, 388 P.2d 790, may be applicable; "NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that The Acres Club, an association apparently involved in attempting to perpetuate this litigation, and its officers and agents, including but not limited to Earl A. Jamison, its President, be joined as Respondents in this cause;