Kelly v. Leachman

51 P. 407, 5 Idaho 521, 1897 Ida. LEXIS 52
Idaho Supreme Court·Decided November 18, 1897·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

51 P. 407 (Kelly v. Leachman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marine Mart v. Kruger
272 P.2d 307 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1954)
Hampton v. Johnson
1912 OK 358 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Thum v. Bailey
86 P. 279 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1906)
Baker v. Butte City Water Co.
60 P. 817 (Montana Supreme Court, 1900)
Wallace v. McKinlay
53 P. 104 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1898)