Ellis v. Jones

Idaho Supreme Court

Ellis v. Jones

524 P.2d 1062, 96 Idaho 90, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 385

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 18, 1974

DocketNo. 11434

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 524 P.2d 1062 (Ellis v. Jones) 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

Ellis v. Jones, 524 P.2d 1062, 96 Idaho 90, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 385 (Idaho 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellants granting them an easement over certain real property owned by defendants-respondents. The essence of this appeal is the assertion ■ by plaintiffs-appellants that the easement granted by the district court is not sufficient for their needs.

Dispositive of this case is the principle that findings of fact by the trial court when supported by substantial competent, although conflicting, evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. Hafer v. [91]*91Horn, 95 Idaho 621, 515 P.2d 1013 (1973); Enders v. Wesley W. Hubbard and Sons, Inc., 95 Idaho 590, 513 P.2d 992 (1973).

The trial court found that it was not necessary to impress upon lot 7 the easement to the extent sought by plaintiffs since it would destroy the value of the lot for other purposes. The court also found that a less onerous easement as granted by the judgment of the trial court would provide any necessary access to the plaintiffs without “destroying the usability of the property to the defendants.” Such findings are supported by substantial competent, although conflicting, evidence and will not be disturbed.

The matter is remanded to the district court for its consideration of a correction of a clerical error in the judgment in the usage of the words “Cavanaugh Bay Addition.” As so amended, the judgment of the trial court and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed. Costs to respondents.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellants granting them an easement over certain real property owned by defendants-respondents. The essence of this appeal is the assertion ■ by plaintiffs-appellants that the easement granted by the district court is not sufficient for their needs.

Dispositive of this case is the principle that findings of fact by the trial court when supported by substantial competent, although conflicting, evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. Hafer v. [91]*91Horn, 95 Idaho 621, 515 P.2d 1013 (1973); Enders v. Wesley W. Hubbard and Sons, Inc., 95 Idaho 590, 513 P.2d 992 (1973).

The trial court found that it was not necessary to impress upon lot 7 the easement to the extent sought by plaintiffs since it would destroy the value of the lot for other purposes. The court also found that a less onerous easement as granted by the judgment of the trial court would provide any necessary access to the plaintiffs without “destroying the usability of the property to the defendants.” Such findings are supported by substantial competent, although conflicting, evidence and will not be disturbed.

The matter is remanded to the district court for its consideration of a correction of a clerical error in the judgment in the usage of the words “Cavanaugh Bay Addition.” As so amended, the judgment of the trial court and the order denying the motion for a new trial are affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 P.2d 1062, 96 Idaho 90, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-jones-idaho-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack