Heckman v. Espey

Idaho Supreme Court

Heckman v. Espey

88 P. 80, 12 Idaho 755, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 97

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 88 P. 80 (Heckman v. Espey) 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

Heckman v. Espey, 88 P. 80, 12 Idaho 755, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 97 (Idaho 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

This suit was brought to recover a two-thirds interest in the South Fork, Nos. 2 and 3 mining claims, situate in Elk City mining district, Idaho county, and for an accounting by the respondent for the ore extracted from said claims. It was alleged and claimed by appellants that a prospecting partnership for the location of mining claims was entered into between appellants and the respondent, and that during the existence of that partnership said mining claims were located. The cause was tried by the court without a jury and judgment was entered against the appellants and in favor of the respondent. Motion for a new trial was made, and the grounds for such motion were insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the court and newly discovered evidence. Said motion was overruled, and the appeal [758]*758■is from the judgment and the order overruling the motion for a new trial.

Only two questions are presented on this appeal, and the first is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the court, and the second whether the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. We have gone through the evidence very carefully and we find that there is a substantial conflict in it. That being true, the well-established rule applies that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the appellate court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court. The affidavits of newly discovered evidence are mostly cumulative and corroborative, and we are unable to see that the court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Costs are awarded to the respondent.

Stoekslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, J.

This suit was brought to recover a two-thirds interest in the South Fork, Nos. 2 and 3 mining claims, situate in Elk City mining district, Idaho county, and for an accounting by the respondent for the ore extracted from said claims. It was alleged and claimed by appellants that a prospecting partnership for the location of mining claims was entered into between appellants and the respondent, and that during the existence of that partnership said mining claims were located. The cause was tried by the court without a jury and judgment was entered against the appellants and in favor of the respondent. Motion for a new trial was made, and the grounds for such motion were insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the court and newly discovered evidence. Said motion was overruled, and the appeal [758]*758■is from the judgment and the order overruling the motion for a new trial.

Only two questions are presented on this appeal, and the first is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the court, and the second whether the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. We have gone through the evidence very carefully and we find that there is a substantial conflict in it. That being true, the well-established rule applies that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the appellate court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court. The affidavits of newly discovered evidence are mostly cumulative and corroborative, and we are unable to see that the court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Costs are awarded to the respondent.

Stoekslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 P. 80, 12 Idaho 755, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heckman-v-espey-idaho-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack