Hudson v. Kootenai Power Co. Ltd.

Idaho Supreme Court

Hudson v. Kootenai Power Co. Ltd.

258 P. 169, 44 Idaho 423, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 108

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJune 28, 1927

DocketNo. 4579.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 258 P. 169 (Hudson v. Kootenai Power Co. Ltd.) 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

Hudson v. Kootenai Power Co. Ltd., 258 P. 169, 44 Idaho 423, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 108 (Idaho 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

GIVENS, J.

Respondent Hudson commenced this action against the Kootenai Power Company to compel the company to remove its poles and wire line from a strip of land running across block “U” in the city of Coeur d’Alene. The Kootenai Power Company and the city contended that the land was a public alleyway of the city and that the company was operating its distributing system in the alley by right of a franchise from the city. The court found in favor of the city to the effect that it was a public alleyway, and judgment was entered in favor of the Power Company. Respondent Hudson was granted a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence from which order the city of Coeur d’Alene appealed.

Respondent asked for a new trial that he might, by means of newly discovered evidence, show that changes other *426 than for the purpose of properly correcting the plat-book, one of the records of Kootenai county, had been made. The application for a new trial is supported by affidavits of the proposed witnesses. The plat, or record in the plat-book, made by the county recorder or by his authority and on file with him is not an original but is a copy or transcription. While a recording officer may amend his record to accord with the facts by correcting mistakes, supplying omissions, altering or amending the same (Mott v. Reynolds, 27 Vt. (1 Wms.) 206; Jay v. Inhabitants of Carthage, 48 Me. 353; Glencoe Board of Education v. Trustees, 74 Ill. App. 401, 174 Ill. 510, 51 N. E. 656; State v. Cornell, 56 Neb. 143, 76 N. W. 459), such damages may be made only ‘to make the record speak the truth and only by or under official authority.

Though the record is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated (C. S., sec. 7954), such prima facie showing may be overcome if the evidence is clear and convincing that .unauthorized changes or interlineations have been made. (Hommel v. Divinney, 39 Mich. 522; Phillips v. Big Sandy Co., 149 Ky. 555, 149 S. W. 957; Northwestern Mortgage Trust Co. v. Levitzow, 23 S. D. 562, 122 N. W. 600; 2 C. J. 1278, sec. 195.)

The determination of the effect of the offered evidence was for the trial court and the court’s action in granting a new trial is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Wm. E. Lée, C. J., and Budge, Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur.

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

GIVENS, J.

Respondent Hudson commenced this action against the Kootenai Power Company to compel the company to remove its poles and wire line from a strip of land running across block “U” in the city of Coeur d’Alene. The Kootenai Power Company and the city contended that the land was a public alleyway of the city and that the company was operating its distributing system in the alley by right of a franchise from the city. The court found in favor of the city to the effect that it was a public alleyway, and judgment was entered in favor of the Power Company. Respondent Hudson was granted a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence from which order the city of Coeur d’Alene appealed.

Respondent asked for a new trial that he might, by means of newly discovered evidence, show that changes other *426 than for the purpose of properly correcting the plat-book, one of the records of Kootenai county, had been made. The application for a new trial is supported by affidavits of the proposed witnesses. The plat, or record in the plat-book, made by the county recorder or by his authority and on file with him is not an original but is a copy or transcription. While a recording officer may amend his record to accord with the facts by correcting mistakes, supplying omissions, altering or amending the same (Mott v. Reynolds, 27 Vt. (1 Wms.) 206; Jay v. Inhabitants of Carthage, 48 Me. 353; Glencoe Board of Education v. Trustees, 74 Ill. App. 401, 174 Ill. 510, 51 N. E. 656; State v. Cornell, 56 Neb. 143, 76 N. W. 459), such damages may be made only ‘to make the record speak the truth and only by or under official authority.

Though the record is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated (C. S., sec. 7954), such prima facie showing may be overcome if the evidence is clear and convincing that .unauthorized changes or interlineations have been made. (Hommel v. Divinney, 39 Mich. 522; Phillips v. Big Sandy Co., 149 Ky. 555, 149 S. W. 957; Northwestern Mortgage Trust Co. v. Levitzow, 23 S. D. 562, 122 N. W. 600; 2 C. J. 1278, sec. 195.)

The determination of the effect of the offered evidence was for the trial court and the court’s action in granting a new trial is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Wm. E. Lée, C. J., and Budge, Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 P. 169, 44 Idaho 423, 1927 Ida. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-kootenai-power-co-ltd-idaho-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack