Thum v. Bailey

Idaho Supreme Court

Thum v. Bailey

86 P. 279, 12 Idaho 510, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 72

DecidedJune 30, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 86 P. 279 (Thum v. Bailey) 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

Thum v. Bailey, 86 P. 279, 12 Idaho 510, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 72 (Idaho 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Counsel for respondent has made a motion to strike out part of the transcript and also a motion to dismiss the appeal on two grounds. In our view of the matter it will be necessary for a determination of the case to decide one of the points raised by the motions, and that is the sufficiency of the undertaking on the appeals, one ap[511]*511peal being from tbe judgment and one from the order denying a new trial.

In the preamble of the undertaking is recited the fact that the appeals are from the judgment and the order overruling the motion for a new trial, and the obligation is as follows:

“Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and of such appeal, we, the undersigned, do hereby jointly and severally undertake and promise on behalf of the defendant that the said defendant will pay all damages and costs which may be awarded against defendant on the appeal, or a dismissal thereof, not exceeding the sum of $300, three hundred dollars, for which amount we acknowledge ourselves jointly and severally bound.” • •

This court has held in many cases that where an appeal is taken both from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial, and it is recited in the obligation of the undertaking that the obligors undertake and promise that the appellant will pay all damages and costs awarded against him on the “appeal or a dismissal thereof,” it is void for uncertainty, and that a motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. (Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 139, 9 Pac. 417; Kelly v. Leachman, 5 Idaho, 521, 51 Pac. 407, and authorities there cited; Baker v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 8 Idaho, 36, 66 Pac. 806.)

On the authority of those cases the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of respondent.

Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Counsel for respondent has made a motion to strike out part of the transcript and also a motion to dismiss the appeal on two grounds. In our view of the matter it will be necessary for a determination of the case to decide one of the points raised by the motions, and that is the sufficiency of the undertaking on the appeals, one ap[511]*511peal being from tbe judgment and one from the order denying a new trial.

In the preamble of the undertaking is recited the fact that the appeals are from the judgment and the order overruling the motion for a new trial, and the obligation is as follows:

“Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and of such appeal, we, the undersigned, do hereby jointly and severally undertake and promise on behalf of the defendant that the said defendant will pay all damages and costs which may be awarded against defendant on the appeal, or a dismissal thereof, not exceeding the sum of $300, three hundred dollars, for which amount we acknowledge ourselves jointly and severally bound.” • •

This court has held in many cases that where an appeal is taken both from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial, and it is recited in the obligation of the undertaking that the obligors undertake and promise that the appellant will pay all damages and costs awarded against him on the “appeal or a dismissal thereof,” it is void for uncertainty, and that a motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. (Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 139, 9 Pac. 417; Kelly v. Leachman, 5 Idaho, 521, 51 Pac. 407, and authorities there cited; Baker v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 8 Idaho, 36, 66 Pac. 806.)

On the authority of those cases the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of respondent.

Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 P. 279, 12 Idaho 510, 1906 Ida. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thum-v-bailey-idaho-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack