Hay v. Hay

Idaho Supreme Court

Hay v. Hay

235 P. 902, 40 Idaho 624, 1925 Ida. LEXIS 48

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 235 P. 902 (Hay v. Hay) 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

Hay v. Hay, 235 P. 902, 40 Idaho 624, 1925 Ida. LEXIS 48 (Idaho 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

WM. E. LEE, J.

The respondent filed herein her motion for an order requiring appellant to pay the clerk of this court for her use and benefit certain sums of money to cover expenses, attorneys’ fees and support and maintenance during the pendency of the appeal from the order denying change of venue. She also asks certain additional sums to pay for medical attention and board and room rent already incurred. The motion was resisted by appellant on several grounds, one of which is that there is on deposit in the First National Bank of St. Maries, to the credit of respondent, the *626 sum of $3,000, which this court said, in Hay v. Hay, ante, p. 159, 232 Pac. 895, “The record clearly shows that the money had been deposited by plaintiff to defendant’s credit and that plaintiff retained no control over it. The money belonged to defendant.”

Original jurisdiction in the matter of allowance for attorneys’ fees, suit money and alimony pendente lite is vested in the district court, C. S., sees. 4642, 4653; and, as was said by this court in Callahan v. Dunn, 30 Ida. 231, 164 Pac. 357, “such orders are made by this court only where it is necessary to a complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.” (See, also, Enders v. Enders, 34 Ida. 381, 201 Pac. 714, 18 A. L. R. 1492.)

In view of the fact that there is in the St. Maries Bank a deposit of $3,000 to the credit of respondent, which she can secure by the presentation of a cheek therefor (Hay v. Hay, ante, p. 159, 232 Pac. 895), and in view of the financial condition of both parties, as the same is made to appear from the affidavits on file in this proceeding, we conclude that it is not necessary to the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this court to direct appellant to pay respondent any sum of money for the purpose indicated, and that it would be improper to do so. Motion denied.

William A. Lee, C. J., Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

WM. E. LEE, J.

The respondent filed herein her motion for an order requiring appellant to pay the clerk of this court for her use and benefit certain sums of money to cover expenses, attorneys’ fees and support and maintenance during the pendency of the appeal from the order denying change of venue. She also asks certain additional sums to pay for medical attention and board and room rent already incurred. The motion was resisted by appellant on several grounds, one of which is that there is on deposit in the First National Bank of St. Maries, to the credit of respondent, the *626 sum of $3,000, which this court said, in Hay v. Hay, ante, p. 159, 232 Pac. 895, “The record clearly shows that the money had been deposited by plaintiff to defendant’s credit and that plaintiff retained no control over it. The money belonged to defendant.”

Original jurisdiction in the matter of allowance for attorneys’ fees, suit money and alimony pendente lite is vested in the district court, C. S., sees. 4642, 4653; and, as was said by this court in Callahan v. Dunn, 30 Ida. 231, 164 Pac. 357, “such orders are made by this court only where it is necessary to a complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.” (See, also, Enders v. Enders, 34 Ida. 381, 201 Pac. 714, 18 A. L. R. 1492.)

In view of the fact that there is in the St. Maries Bank a deposit of $3,000 to the credit of respondent, which she can secure by the presentation of a cheek therefor (Hay v. Hay, ante, p. 159, 232 Pac. 895), and in view of the financial condition of both parties, as the same is made to appear from the affidavits on file in this proceeding, we conclude that it is not necessary to the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this court to direct appellant to pay respondent any sum of money for the purpose indicated, and that it would be improper to do so. Motion denied.

William A. Lee, C. J., Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 P. 902, 40 Idaho 624, 1925 Ida. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hay-v-hay-idaho-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack