Jones v. Miller

Idaho Supreme Court

Jones v. Miller

158 P. 499, 29 Idaho 266, 1916 Ida. LEXIS 78

DecidedJune 17, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 158 P. 499 (Jones v. Miller) 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

Jones v. Miller, 158 P. 499, 29 Idaho 266, 1916 Ida. LEXIS 78 (Idaho 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This action was, brought for an injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with the pipe-line and water right owned by the plaintiff. Upon a trial of the issues made by the pleadings, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the pipe-line and water right of plaintiff. The appeal is from that judgment or order.

Several errors are assigned in regard to the admission and rejection of certain evidence and to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

Upon a careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that the court did not commit any reversible error, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This action was, brought for an injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with the pipe-line and water right owned by the plaintiff. Upon a trial of the issues made by the pleadings, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the pipe-line and water right of plaintiff. The appeal is from that judgment or order.

Several errors are assigned in regard to the admission and rejection of certain evidence and to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

Upon a careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that the court did not commit any reversible error, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 P. 499, 29 Idaho 266, 1916 Ida. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-miller-idaho-1916.