C. A. Dawson Co. v. D. F. Murphy Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

C. A. Dawson Co. v. D. F. Murphy Co.

243 P. 1118, 42 Idaho 131, 1926 Ida. LEXIS 62

DecidedFebruary 2, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 243 P. 1118 (C. A. Dawson Co. v. D. F. Murphy Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. A. Dawson Co. v. D. F. Murphy Co., 243 P. 1118, 42 Idaho 131, 1926 Ida. LEXIS 62 (Idaho 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

WM, E. LEE, J.

This appeal was perfected and the transcript filed December 5, 1924. The cause was regularly-reached on the calendar and set down and noticed for argument. Respondents appeared but appellant was not represented at the time fixed for the argument and has not filed a bi’ief. We have, however, examined the transcript, and finding no fundamental error in the record, under Rule 48, on motion of respondents, the judgment is affirmed.

William A. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WM, E. LEE, J.

This appeal was perfected and the transcript filed December 5, 1924. The cause was regularly-reached on the calendar and set down and noticed for argument. Respondents appeared but appellant was not represented at the time fixed for the argument and has not filed a bi’ief. We have, however, examined the transcript, and finding no fundamental error in the record, under Rule 48, on motion of respondents, the judgment is affirmed.

William A. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 P. 1118, 42 Idaho 131, 1926 Ida. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-a-dawson-co-v-d-f-murphy-co-idaho-1926.