California Consolidated Mining Co. v. Manley

Idaho Supreme Court

California Consolidated Mining Co. v. Manley

85 P. 919, 12 Idaho 221, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 38

DecidedApril 11, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 85 P. 919 (California Consolidated Mining Co. v. Manley) 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

California Consolidated Mining Co. v. Manley, 85 P. 919, 12 Idaho 221, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 38 (Idaho 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

STOCKSLAGER, C. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that the transcript was not filed with the clerk within the time required by the rules of this court. In support of this motion they file the certificate of the clerk of the district court of Shoshone county, in which he certifies that a “final judgment dated July 24, 1905, in conformity with a decision rendered by the supreme court of Idaho, rendered May 8, 1905, was filed and recorded in the above-named court in the above-entitled action on August 1, 1905; that a notice of appeal therefrom to the supreme court of the state of Idaho and an undertaking on appeal in due form for $300 costs, were filed October 6, 1905, by plaintiff; that plaintiff’s praecipe for a transcript of the record for use on appeal was filed November 21, 1905, and on November 24, 1905, a duly certified transcript of the record on appeal was furnished plaintiff.”

Upon the foregoing certificate, and it not appearing that an extension of time to prepare and. file a transcript had been granted, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. Costs to respondent.

Ailshie, J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

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

STOCKSLAGER, C. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground that the transcript was not filed with the clerk within the time required by the rules of this court. In support of this motion they file the certificate of the clerk of the district court of Shoshone county, in which he certifies that a “final judgment dated July 24, 1905, in conformity with a decision rendered by the supreme court of Idaho, rendered May 8, 1905, was filed and recorded in the above-named court in the above-entitled action on August 1, 1905; that a notice of appeal therefrom to the supreme court of the state of Idaho and an undertaking on appeal in due form for $300 costs, were filed October 6, 1905, by plaintiff; that plaintiff’s praecipe for a transcript of the record for use on appeal was filed November 21, 1905, and on November 24, 1905, a duly certified transcript of the record on appeal was furnished plaintiff.”

Upon the foregoing certificate, and it not appearing that an extension of time to prepare and. file a transcript had been granted, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. Costs to respondent.

Ailshie, J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 P. 919, 12 Idaho 221, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-consolidated-mining-co-v-manley-idaho-1906.