Purdum v. Taylor

Idaho Supreme Court

Purdum v. Taylor

9 P. 607, 2 Idaho 167, 1886 Ida. LEXIS 7

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 P. 607 (Purdum v. Taylor) 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

Purdum v. Taylor, 9 P. 607, 2 Idaho 167, 1886 Ida. LEXIS 7 (Idaho 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

BUCK, J.

This action was brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendants answered, alleging that the prem[168]*168ises described .in tbe mortgage were, at the time of the execution thereof, public lands of the United States, npon which he was living as a pre-emptor. Upon the issues thus made, upon the motion of defendant, the court entered judgment on the pleadings. The appeal is from the judgment.

The order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings was a final decision in the action, to which an exception is deemed to have been taken under section 403 of our Code of Civil Procedure. To make this exception available on appeal it should have been settled in a bill of exceptions under section 406 of the code, and made a part of the record. (Guthrie v. Phelan, 6 Pac. 107; Guthrie v. Fisher, 6 Pac. 111; Ainslie v. Idaho World Printing Co., 1 Idaho, 641; Graham v. Linehan, 1 Idaho, 780; Fox v. West, 1 Idaho, 782; Femme v. Hays, 55 Cal. 337.)

The ruling of the court upon the motion for judgment on the pleadings not being questioned in the record, we have only to look to the complaint to ascertain whether its allegations are sufficient to sustain the judgment. (Ray v. Ray, 1 Idaho, 705; People v. Hunt, 1 Idaho, 433.)

We think the complaint is sufficient, and the judgment is affirmed. (Hyde v. Harkness, 1 Idaho, 638.)

Hays, C. J., and Broderick, J., concurring.

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

BUCK, J.

This action was brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendants answered, alleging that the prem[168]*168ises described .in tbe mortgage were, at the time of the execution thereof, public lands of the United States, npon which he was living as a pre-emptor. Upon the issues thus made, upon the motion of defendant, the court entered judgment on the pleadings. The appeal is from the judgment.

The order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings was a final decision in the action, to which an exception is deemed to have been taken under section 403 of our Code of Civil Procedure. To make this exception available on appeal it should have been settled in a bill of exceptions under section 406 of the code, and made a part of the record. (Guthrie v. Phelan, 6 Pac. 107; Guthrie v. Fisher, 6 Pac. 111; Ainslie v. Idaho World Printing Co., 1 Idaho, 641; Graham v. Linehan, 1 Idaho, 780; Fox v. West, 1 Idaho, 782; Femme v. Hays, 55 Cal. 337.)

The ruling of the court upon the motion for judgment on the pleadings not being questioned in the record, we have only to look to the complaint to ascertain whether its allegations are sufficient to sustain the judgment. (Ray v. Ray, 1 Idaho, 705; People v. Hunt, 1 Idaho, 433.)

We think the complaint is sufficient, and the judgment is affirmed. (Hyde v. Harkness, 1 Idaho, 638.)

Hays, C. J., and Broderick, J., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 P. 607, 2 Idaho 167, 1886 Ida. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purdum-v-taylor-idaho-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack