Kelly v. Leachman

Idaho Supreme Court

Kelly v. Leachman

51 P. 407, 5 Idaho 521, 1897 Ida. LEXIS 52

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 51 P. 407 (Kelly v. Leachman) 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

Kelly v. Leachman, 51 P. 407, 5 Idaho 521, 1897 Ida. LEXIS 52 (Idaho 1897).

Pincite

Opinions

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and order overruling motion for a new trial. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the undertaking was void 'for uncertainty. In the ^preamble of the undertaking it is recited that the appeal is from the judgment, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial. And in the obligation the obligors agreed that said appellants will pay all damages and costs that may be awarded against them on the “appeal.” On the authority of Sebree v. Smith, 2 Idaho, 359, 16 Pac. 477; Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 148, 9 Pac. 417, Eddy v. Vanness, 2 Idaho, 101, 6 Pac. 115, and Schiller v. Small, 4 Idaho, 422, 40 Pac. 53, the appea] must be dismissed. This [523]*523question has been passed upon so frequently by this court that the wonder is that attorneys are not more careful in preparing their undertakings on appeal. The motion is granted, and the appeal dismissed; costs of this appeal granted to the respondent.

Huston and Quarles, JJ., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and order overruling motion for a new trial. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the undertaking was void 'for uncertainty. In the ^preamble of the undertaking it is recited that the appeal is from the judgment, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial. And in the obligation the obligors agreed that said appellants will pay all damages and costs that may be awarded against them on the “appeal.” On the authority of Sebree v. Smith, 2 Idaho, 359, 16 Pac. 477; Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 148, 9 Pac. 417, Eddy v. Vanness, 2 Idaho, 101, 6 Pac. 115, and Schiller v. Small, 4 Idaho, 422, 40 Pac. 53, the appea] must be dismissed. This [523]*523question has been passed upon so frequently by this court that the wonder is that attorneys are not more careful in preparing their undertakings on appeal. The motion is granted, and the appeal dismissed; costs of this appeal granted to the respondent.

Huston and Quarles, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 P. 407, 5 Idaho 521, 1897 Ida. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-leachman-idaho-1897.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack