v2579-252

22

possession, and a wrongful taking by the de-

fendants.

The district court was in error in not sustain-

ing the defendants' motion for a nonsuit because

of the plaintiff's failure to prove his case."

Appellants respectfully call to the court's attention

that no motion of any kind or character, before, dur^

ing or after the trial, that the pleadings be made tq

conform to the proof, was made by the plaintiff otheij

than the substitution of the word "Kenai" for the

word "Kasilof" in the complaint.

CONCLUSION.

It is apparent from the authorities herein cited to

the court and the rules of law laid down therein,

that the District Court was in error in failing to

sustain appellants' demurrers, as well as failing tG

grant appellants' respective motions and requeste(

instructions.

Dated, Anchorage, Alaska,

October 17, 1949.

John E. Manders,

Edward V. Davis,

Attorneys for Appellants.

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2579

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2579

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2579#page/n251/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

word, sustain, failing, district, wrongful, tq, tg, substitution, rules, respective, respectfully, requeste, prove, possession, pleadings

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

word kenai, word kasilof, tq conform, tg grant, respective motions, requeste instructions., manders edward, failing tg, anchorage alaska, alaska october

Document Status: UGLY