Fahey v. Belcher

Idaho Supreme Court

Fahey v. Belcher

29 P. 112, 3 Idaho 355, 1892 Ida. LEXIS 19

DecidedFebruary 26, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 29 P. 112 (Fahey v. Belcher) 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

Fahey v. Belcher, 29 P. 112, 3 Idaho 355, 1892 Ida. LEXIS 19 (Idaho 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This appeal was dismissed upon the application of the respondent, under rule 4 of this court, January 12, 1892. Said rule declares that a cause so dismissed may be restored during the same term, upon good cause shown, on notice to the opposite party. The appellants made their motion to replace this cause on the calendar. As the transcript does not contain the notice of appeal, we are not informed whether this is an appeal from the judgment only or not; however, the certificate of the clerk shows that no bill of exceptions of statement has been settled. This fact, together with the transcript presented, would indicate that the appeal is from the judgment, and to be heard on the judgment-roll. The judgment was rendered by the court below on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1891, and this appeal perfected on the fourteenth day of September, 1891. The affidavit shows that the transcript was prepared and placed in the hands of appellants’ attorneys in October, 1891; and that, through inadvertence and pressure of business, they neglected to file the same in this court. The transcript was in the hands of the attorneys some three months before the opening of this term, and no effort was made to have the same filed until long after the opening of this term. We are of the opinion that no good cause has been shown for replacing this cause on the calendar. The motion is denied.

Huston and Morgan, J J., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This appeal was dismissed upon the application of the respondent, under rule 4 of this court, January 12, 1892. Said rule declares that a cause so dismissed may be restored during the same term, upon good cause shown, on notice to the opposite party. The appellants made their motion to replace this cause on the calendar. As the transcript does not contain the notice of appeal, we are not informed whether this is an appeal from the judgment only or not; however, the certificate of the clerk shows that no bill of exceptions of statement has been settled. This fact, together with the transcript presented, would indicate that the appeal is from the judgment, and to be heard on the judgment-roll. The judgment was rendered by the court below on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1891, and this appeal perfected on the fourteenth day of September, 1891. The affidavit shows that the transcript was prepared and placed in the hands of appellants’ attorneys in October, 1891; and that, through inadvertence and pressure of business, they neglected to file the same in this court. The transcript was in the hands of the attorneys some three months before the opening of this term, and no effort was made to have the same filed until long after the opening of this term. We are of the opinion that no good cause has been shown for replacing this cause on the calendar. The motion is denied.

Huston and Morgan, J J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 P. 112, 3 Idaho 355, 1892 Ida. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fahey-v-belcher-idaho-1892.