Boley v. Griswold
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hirsh v. Block (District Court, District of Columbia 1920)
- ætna Ins. Co. v. Rhodes (10th Cir. 1948)
- Porter v. Gardner (D.C. Cir. 1922)
- Donovan v. Aetna Indemnity Co. of Hartford (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
- Hynes v. Barnes (Mont. 1904)
- Wise v. Jefferis (9th Cir. 1892)
- Vantilburg v. Black (Mont. 1880)
- Oakes v. Lake (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
- Rhees v. Morris (District Court, District of Columbia 1922)
- Carroll v. Parry (D.C. Cir. 1919)
- Kleindienst v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1918)
- Cox v. Sargent (Colo. App. 1897)
- Cox v. Sargent (Colo. App. 1897)
- New England Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Bryant (Minn. 1896)
- Parker v. People (Colo. App. 1895)
- Parker v. People (Colo. App. 1895)
- McCarthy v. Strait (Colo. App. 1895)
- McCarthy v. Strait (Colo. App. 1895)
- Connor v. Bates (Tenn. 1893)
- Burton v. Platter (8th Cir. 1893)
- Eason v. Miller & Kelly (S.C. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion óf the court.
It is true.that' under the Civil Practice Act of Montana there can be no judgment for the value if there can be a delivery of the property-, but it is'not true that a judgment is necessarily erroneous if'the alternative is not expressed upon its face. The court must be satisfied that the delivery cannot be made before it can adjudge absolutely the payment of money.' But, if so satisfied, it may so adjudge. A special- finding to that ' effect is not' necessary. An absolute judgment for the money is equivalent to such a finding.
In one part of this record it appears that the verdict was for this return of the property, .or, in case that could not be made, for $3000, the value, a,nd $800 ' damages' for the detention. The judgment was for the money, and the pre *488 sumption is, in the absence of anything in the record to the contrary, that before it was rendered the court had become judicially satisfied-that the property could not be returned. In a court of error every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment brought under consideration. Error must appear affirmatively before there can be a reversal. •
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.