Harvey v. Brett

209 P. 209, 36 Idaho 126, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 129
Idaho Supreme Court·Decided September 2, 1922·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

DUNN, J.

This action to quiet title to Permit No. 1 and Permit No. 2 lode claims was brought by respondents in [127] support of an adverse claim filed in the Coeur d’Alene land office against the application of appellant for patent for the U. S. and Daucher lode claims. Judgment went for respondents, from which appeal was taken.

In the trial court the sole issue to be determined was whether the annual labor required by law was actually performed on the U. S. and Daucher claims for-the year 1913. The trial judge found that such annual labor was not performed, and the sole question for this court to determine is whether such finding is supported by substantial evidence:

An examination of the record shows a conflict, with substantial evidence to support said finding. In this situation the judgment will not be disturbed. (Fritcher v. Kelly, 34 Ida. 471, 201 Pac. 1037.) Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Eice, C. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.

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

Harvey v. Brett, 209 P. 209, 36 Idaho 126, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 129 (Idaho 1922).

209 P. 209 (Harvey v. Brett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Powelson v. Kinney
234 P. 935 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Crumpacker v. Bank of Washington County
223 P. 229 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1924)
Caravelis v. Cacavas
220 P. 110 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)
McKean v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
215 P. 851 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)