Crosslin v. Crosslin

Idaho Supreme Court

Crosslin v. Crosslin

208 P. 402, 35 Idaho 765, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 101

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 3, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 P. 402 (Crosslin v. Crosslin) 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

Crosslin v. Crosslin, 208 P. 402, 35 Idaho 765, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 101 (Idaho 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MCCARTHY, J.

Appellant’s motion to quash the order to show cause, heretofore issued out of this court, is denied. Respondent’s motion to dismiss appellant’s appeal from the order of the district court for temporary alimony, suit money and attorney fee is granted. Respondent’s application for suit money and attorney fee in this court is granted, and it is ordered that appellant pay to the clerk of this court, within 30 days, the sum of $125 for the use of respondent, as suit money and attorney fee, to enable her to present to this court her side of the case on appellant’s appeal from the order denying a change of venue. As to other matters, respondent’s application is denied.

Rice, C. J., and Budge, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

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

MCCARTHY, J.

Appellant’s motion to quash the order to show cause, heretofore issued out of this court, is denied. Respondent’s motion to dismiss appellant’s appeal from the order of the district court for temporary alimony, suit money and attorney fee is granted. Respondent’s application for suit money and attorney fee in this court is granted, and it is ordered that appellant pay to the clerk of this court, within 30 days, the sum of $125 for the use of respondent, as suit money and attorney fee, to enable her to present to this court her side of the case on appellant’s appeal from the order denying a change of venue. As to other matters, respondent’s application is denied.

Rice, C. J., and Budge, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 P. 402, 35 Idaho 765, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosslin-v-crosslin-idaho-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack