Hodgins v. Harris

Idaho Supreme Court

Hodgins v. Harris

43 P. 72, 4 Idaho 517, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 65

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 43 P. 72 (Hodgins v. Harris) 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

Hodgins v. Harris, 43 P. 72, 4 Idaho 517, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 65 (Idaho 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

HHSTON, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. At the end of the conclusions of law found by the district court, the following words appear: “It is ordered that, after deducting the payment to the sheriff, that the balance of the proceeds of sale be paid into court, and distributed, by and -through the clerk, in the foregoing order, and that judgment and decree be entered herein in accordance with the foregoing findings. Done in open court this eighth day of December,, [518]*5181894. [Signed] W. G. Piper, Judge.” This is not a judgment, as bas been repeatedly decided by this court, following uniform decisions of the supreme court of California upon identical statutes. (Durant v. Comegys, 3 Idaho, 67, 35 Am. St. Rep. 267, 26 Pac. 755; Gray v. Cederholm, 2 Idaho, 34, 3 Pac. 12; Meysan v. Chabrie (Cal.), 7 Pac. 634; Stebbins v. Savage, 5 Mont. 253, 5 Pac. 278; Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416; McNevin v. McNevin, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 92; Thomas v. Anderson, 55 Cal. 43; Schroder v. Schmidt, 71 Cal. 399, 12 Pac. 302; and many others.) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

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

HHSTON, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. At the end of the conclusions of law found by the district court, the following words appear: “It is ordered that, after deducting the payment to the sheriff, that the balance of the proceeds of sale be paid into court, and distributed, by and -through the clerk, in the foregoing order, and that judgment and decree be entered herein in accordance with the foregoing findings. Done in open court this eighth day of December,, [518]*5181894. [Signed] W. G. Piper, Judge.” This is not a judgment, as bas been repeatedly decided by this court, following uniform decisions of the supreme court of California upon identical statutes. (Durant v. Comegys, 3 Idaho, 67, 35 Am. St. Rep. 267, 26 Pac. 755; Gray v. Cederholm, 2 Idaho, 34, 3 Pac. 12; Meysan v. Chabrie (Cal.), 7 Pac. 634; Stebbins v. Savage, 5 Mont. 253, 5 Pac. 278; Gray v. Palmer, 28 Cal. 416; McNevin v. McNevin, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 92; Thomas v. Anderson, 55 Cal. 43; Schroder v. Schmidt, 71 Cal. 399, 12 Pac. 302; and many others.) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 P. 72, 4 Idaho 517, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodgins-v-harris-idaho-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack