Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Citation
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Parent Document
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Jurisdiction
- Montana (state)
- Effective Date
- 1914-10-19
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
- Centennial Brewing Co. v. Rouleau, 49 Mont. 490 (1914)
Full Text
1,076 charsTheir general demurrer having been overruled, the defendants filed their answer which, while admitting that they were in the possession of the premises and that Lavell had served upon them the notice set out in the complaint, by denials and counteraverments joined issue upon all the other allegations of the complaint. They further averred that they had been in possession of the property since April 1, 1912, paying the rent therefor, and that they had not been notified to surrender possession to anyone. This averment was denied by reply. At the trial, the court having denied defendants’ motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict, directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The verdict assessed the damages at $400. Counsel for the plaintiff requested the court to direct judgment for treble the amount of the award. This the court refused to do and ordered judgment for restitution of the premises and the amount found by the jury. The defendants have appealed from the judgment and order denying their motion for a new trial. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.