McCarty v. Warnkin

207 P. 1075, 35 Idaho 614, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 85
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 P. 1075 (McCarty v. Warnkin) 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
McCarty v. Warnkin, 207 P. 1075, 35 Idaho 614, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 85 (Idaho 1922).

Opinion

RICE, C. J.

The appeal in this ease is from a judgment and from an order denying appellants’ motion for a new trial.

The record contains what purports to be a reporter’s transcript of the evidence and proceedings at the trial, which is not settled by the trial court. It cannot be considered on appeal. (Wells v. Culp, 30 Ida. 438, 166 Pac. 218; Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Peterson, 31 Ida. 745, 176 Pac. 99; Ellsworth v. Hill, 34 Ida. 359, 200 Pac. 1067.)

The transcript does not contain a certificate as to the papers used upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. The action of the court in denying the motion is therefore not subject to review. (Biwer v. Van Dorn, 32 Ida. 213, 179 Pac. 953; Spencer v. John, 33 Ida. 717, 197 Pac. 827.)

This leaves the judgment-roll alone for consideration. No error appearing on the face thereof, as supplemented by permission of the court granted at the hearing, the judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Budge, McCarthy, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Douglas v. Kenney
233 P. 874 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Anderson v. Walker Co.
225 P. 144 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 P. 1075, 35 Idaho 614, 1922 Ida. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarty-v-warnkin-idaho-1922.