Healy v. Hargis

Idaho Supreme Court

Healy v. Hargis

254 P. 796, 43 Idaho 742, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 217

DecidedMarch 12, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 254 P. 796 (Healy v. Hargis) 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

Healy v. Hargis, 254 P. 796, 43 Idaho 742, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 217 (Idaho 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

*744 TAYLOR, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover upon a promissory note made by defendants Ida Hargis and E'. M. Hargis, her husband, to Robert F. Taylor, and by him assigned to the plaintiffs. The note was payable in instalments as the purchase price of certain furniture.

From a thorough examination of the record and authorities cited, we have reached the following conclusions: (1) That the instrument involved was non-negotiable; (2) That the instrument was long overdue, and over 60 days overdue, when this action was instituted, and plaintiffs, by lack of due diligence in bringing this action, released defendant Taylor from his liability as indorser; (3) That there was ample evidence to support the findings of the court; (4) That plaintiffs are not entitled to recover a judgment against the sole and separate estate of Ida Hargis; (5) That no substantial or prejudicial error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. Givens, J., disqualified.

Petition for rehearing denied.

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

*744 TAYLOR, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover upon a promissory note made by defendants Ida Hargis and E'. M. Hargis, her husband, to Robert F. Taylor, and by him assigned to the plaintiffs. The note was payable in instalments as the purchase price of certain furniture.

From a thorough examination of the record and authorities cited, we have reached the following conclusions: (1) That the instrument involved was non-negotiable; (2) That the instrument was long overdue, and over 60 days overdue, when this action was instituted, and plaintiffs, by lack of due diligence in bringing this action, released defendant Taylor from his liability as indorser; (3) That there was ample evidence to support the findings of the court; (4) That plaintiffs are not entitled to recover a judgment against the sole and separate estate of Ida Hargis; (5) That no substantial or prejudicial error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. Givens, J., disqualified.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 P. 796, 43 Idaho 742, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healy-v-hargis-idaho-1927.