
    FREDERICK et al., Appellants, v. McMAHON, Respondent.
    (No. 1,583.)
    (Submitted May 15, 1903.
    Decided May 25, 1903.)
    
      Appeal — Rules of Supreme Court — Defective Record — Defective Brief — Affirmance.
    Judgment below will be affirmed where the record and appellant’s brief fail completely to comply with the requirements of the statutes and the Rules of the Supreme Court.
    
      Appeal from' District Court, Cascade County; Dudley Du-Bose, Judge.
    
    Action by W. EL Frederick and Thomas A. Ray, partners doing business as Frederick & Ray, against Thomas McMahon. From a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order overruling a motion for a new, trial, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Mr. William Q. Downing, and Messrs. Toole & Bach, for Appellants.
    
      “Mr. Bcmsom Cooper, for Respondent.
   MR. COMMISSIONER OLAYBERG

prepared the opinion for the court.

The record and appellants’ brief in this case so completely fail to comply with the requirements of the statutes and the rules of this court, that, under the cases of Cornish v. Floyd-Jones, 26 Mont. 153, 66 Pac. 838, Knobb v. Reed, 28 Mont. 42, 72 Pac. 304, and other numerous former dtecisions of this court, none of the questions sought to be raised can be considered.

We therefore advise that the judgment he affirmed.

Per Curiam. — For the reasons stated in the .foregoing opinion, the judgment in this case is affirmed.  