Ellsworth v. Hill

Idaho Supreme Court

Ellsworth v. Hill

200 P. 1067, 34 Idaho 359, 1921 Ida. LEXIS 116

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 23, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 200 P. 1067 (Ellsworth v. Hill) 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

Ellsworth v. Hill, 200 P. 1067, 34 Idaho 359, 1921 Ida. LEXIS 116 (Idaho 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

McCARTHY, J.

The above ease was set down for hearing on respondents’ motions to strike the reporter’s transcript of the evidence and to dismiss the appeal, and on the merits. On the hearing'appellant submitted no brief and was not represented. Respondents were represented by counsel. The motion to strike the reporter’s transcript of the evidence is sustained on the grounds that it is not certified by the court reporter nor settled or allowed by the trial court. The grounds of the motion to dismiss the appeal [360]*360are those stated above, and the additional ground that no brief has been filed by appellant. None of these are grounds for dismissing the appeal. National Bank v. Agnew, 12 Ida. 189, 85 Pac. 116, expressing the contrary view, is overruled. The facts that appellant filed no brief and was not represented by counsel on the hearing, and that respondents’ counsel was present at the hearing and submitted the case are grounds for affirming the judgment under Rule 48 of this court, unless the court, after examining the record, finds fundamental error which requires reversal. We have examined the record and find no such error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents.

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.

The above ease was set down for hearing on respondents’ motions to strike the reporter’s transcript of the evidence and to dismiss the appeal, and on the merits. On the hearing'appellant submitted no brief and was not represented. Respondents were represented by counsel. The motion to strike the reporter’s transcript of the evidence is sustained on the grounds that it is not certified by the court reporter nor settled or allowed by the trial court. The grounds of the motion to dismiss the appeal [360]*360are those stated above, and the additional ground that no brief has been filed by appellant. None of these are grounds for dismissing the appeal. National Bank v. Agnew, 12 Ida. 189, 85 Pac. 116, expressing the contrary view, is overruled. The facts that appellant filed no brief and was not represented by counsel on the hearing, and that respondents’ counsel was present at the hearing and submitted the case are grounds for affirming the judgment under Rule 48 of this court, unless the court, after examining the record, finds fundamental error which requires reversal. We have examined the record and find no such error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 P. 1067, 34 Idaho 359, 1921 Ida. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellsworth-v-hill-idaho-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack