Dore v. Benedict

Idaho Supreme Court

Dore v. Benedict

167 P. 1165, 30 Idaho 731, 1917 Ida. LEXIS 104

Idaho Supreme Court·Decided October 2, 1917·Published

Opinion

BUDGE, C. J.

The parties to the above-entitled action and their respective attorneys have stipulated, “that the judge[732]*732ment to be rendered upon appeal in the above-entitled action shall be governed by the judgment that may be rendered in the case of Timothy Dore, as Special Deputy State Bank Commissioner of the Leadore State Bank, Plaintiff, v. Morris H. Cottom, Defendant,” ante, p. 696, 167 Pac. 1164. Upon the authority of that ease the judgment of the trial court in this cause is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Morgan and Bice, JJ., concur.

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

BUDGE, C. J.

The parties to the above-entitled action and their respective attorneys have stipulated, “that the judge[732]*732ment to be rendered upon appeal in the above-entitled action shall be governed by the judgment that may be rendered in the case of Timothy Dore, as Special Deputy State Bank Commissioner of the Leadore State Bank, Plaintiff, v. Morris H. Cottom, Defendant,” ante, p. 696, 167 Pac. 1164. Upon the authority of that ease the judgment of the trial court in this cause is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Morgan and Bice, JJ., concur.

Dore v. Benedict, 167 P. 1165, 30 Idaho 731, 1917 Ida. LEXIS 104 (Idaho 1917).

Pincite

167 P. 1165 (Dore v. Benedict) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related