Crews v. Baird

Idaho Supreme Court

Crews v. Baird

6 P. 116, 2 Idaho 103, 1885 Ida. LEXIS 6

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 21, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 P. 116 (Crews v. Baird) 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

Crews v. Baird, 6 P. 116, 2 Idaho 103, 1885 Ida. LEXIS 6 (Idaho 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CURIAM.

In this ease the appellant contends that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence, and we are asked to examine this question. That which purports to be a statement of the evidence and exceptions thereto was not settled and signed by the district judge. That the settling and signing of the statement is mandatory, and its omission fatal, is a proposition that cannot be disputed. Without this authentication the statement cannot be treated as part of the judgment-roll, nor be considered in this court. The only question properly presented for our consideration is whether the complaint is sufficient to support the judgment. We think it is. The complaint alleges the wrongful taking of the property in question, the detention, the demand, and damages for wrongfully withholding the same. We think this sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

Morgan, C. J., and Broderick and Buck, JJ., concurring.

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

Per CURIAM.

In this ease the appellant contends that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence, and we are asked to examine this question. That which purports to be a statement of the evidence and exceptions thereto was not settled and signed by the district judge. That the settling and signing of the statement is mandatory, and its omission fatal, is a proposition that cannot be disputed. Without this authentication the statement cannot be treated as part of the judgment-roll, nor be considered in this court. The only question properly presented for our consideration is whether the complaint is sufficient to support the judgment. We think it is. The complaint alleges the wrongful taking of the property in question, the detention, the demand, and damages for wrongfully withholding the same. We think this sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

Morgan, C. J., and Broderick and Buck, JJ., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 P. 116, 2 Idaho 103, 1885 Ida. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crews-v-baird-idaho-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack