Chapman v. A. H. Averill Machinery Co.
This text of 147 P. 785 (Chapman v. A. H. Averill Machinery 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.
Opinion
— This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. A motion to dismiss the appeal has been made on the ground that the stenographer’s notes of the evidence were not prepared, served, settled and certified as required by law, or at all.
On an examination of the transcript, we find that the reporter’s notes were not settled by the trial court or judge, and on the authority of Grisinger v. Hubbard, 21 Ida. 469, Ann Cas. 1913E, 87, 122 Pac. 853; and Strand v. Crooked [214]*214River M. & M. Co., 23 Ida. 577, 131 Pac. 5, where it was held that in order to review the matter contained in the ‘stenographer’s transcript such transcript must be settled by the judge, the motion must be sustained and the appeal dismissed. Costs in favor of the respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
147 P. 785, 27 Idaho 213, 1915 Ida. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-a-h-averill-machinery-co-idaho-1915.