Galbraith v. Galbraith

Idaho Supreme Court

Galbraith v. Galbraith

251 P. 1118, 43 Idaho 319, 1926 Ida. LEXIS 38

DecidedDecember 6, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 251 P. 1118 (Galbraith v. Galbraith) 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

Galbraith v. Galbraith, 251 P. 1118, 43 Idaho 319, 1926 Ida. LEXIS 38 (Idaho 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

T. BAILEY LEE, J.

Effie K. Galbraith sued her husband, Edward M. Galbraith, for divorce, setting up extreme cruelty, wilful desertion and neglect. The court found against her; and from the judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial she has appealed, assigning insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and error in the conclusions drawn therefrom.

The exhibits admitted have neither been included in the transcript nor separately* certified; and there is no evi *320 deuce before this court except the recorded testimony of the witnesses. On every vital issue there is a direct and substantial conflict of evidence throughout. Impeachments and inconsistencies are manifold. The trial court had the witnesses before him, decided the question of credibility, and his determination cannot be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Givens, and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

T. BAILEY LEE, J.

Effie K. Galbraith sued her husband, Edward M. Galbraith, for divorce, setting up extreme cruelty, wilful desertion and neglect. The court found against her; and from the judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial she has appealed, assigning insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and error in the conclusions drawn therefrom.

The exhibits admitted have neither been included in the transcript nor separately* certified; and there is no evi *320 deuce before this court except the recorded testimony of the witnesses. On every vital issue there is a direct and substantial conflict of evidence throughout. Impeachments and inconsistencies are manifold. The trial court had the witnesses before him, decided the question of credibility, and his determination cannot be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Givens, and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 P. 1118, 43 Idaho 319, 1926 Ida. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galbraith-v-galbraith-idaho-1926.