Hoskins v. Wooden

Idaho Supreme Court

Hoskins v. Wooden

38 P. 933, 4 Idaho 292, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 1

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 P. 933 (Hoskins v. Wooden) 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

Hoskins v. Wooden, 38 P. 933, 4 Idaho 292, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 1 (Idaho 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

MORGAN, C. J. —

Plaintiff brought suit in replevin in the district court of the fifth judicial district against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Bingham, for the recovery of certain horses and cattle, or for the sum of $1,150.95, and for $100 damages and costs. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered against the defendant for a return of the horses and cattle, and, if return thereof could not be had, for judgment in the sum of $1,135.25. Defendant moved for new trial, which motion was denied, and defendant appealed both from the judgment and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial; and the bond recites: “Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeal.” Respondent moves to dismiss for want of bond. This bond is precisely similar to the one in the cases of Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 148, 9 Pac. 417; Sebree v. Smith, 2 Idaho, 357, 16 Pac. 477; Mathison v. Leland, 1 Idaho, 712—and on the authority of these eases this appeal is dismissed.

Huston and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

MORGAN, C. J. —

Plaintiff brought suit in replevin in the district court of the fifth judicial district against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Bingham, for the recovery of certain horses and cattle, or for the sum of $1,150.95, and for $100 damages and costs. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered against the defendant for a return of the horses and cattle, and, if return thereof could not be had, for judgment in the sum of $1,135.25. Defendant moved for new trial, which motion was denied, and defendant appealed both from the judgment and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial; and the bond recites: “Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeal.” Respondent moves to dismiss for want of bond. This bond is precisely similar to the one in the cases of Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 148, 9 Pac. 417; Sebree v. Smith, 2 Idaho, 357, 16 Pac. 477; Mathison v. Leland, 1 Idaho, 712—and on the authority of these eases this appeal is dismissed.

Huston and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 P. 933, 4 Idaho 292, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoskins-v-wooden-idaho-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack