Tomsche v. Hummel

Idaho Supreme Court

Tomsche v. Hummel

108 P. 343, 18 Idaho 23, 1910 Ida. LEXIS 5

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 108 P. 343 (Tomsche v. Hummel) 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

Tomsche v. Hummel, 108 P. 343, 18 Idaho 23, 1910 Ida. LEXIS 5 (Idaho 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This suit was commenced by the plaintiff, who is appellant, to quiet the title to lots 7 and 8 in block 8 of Canyon Addition to the city of Wallace, Shoshone county. The defendant answered by denying the allegations of the complaint and by way of cross-complaint sought affirmative relief and prayed to have her title quieted to said lots. The appellant did not answer said cross-complaint and default was entered against him. The action was tried by the court without a jury and findings of fact and conclusions of law were made by the court and judgment entered in favor of the defendant, quieting the title to said lots in her. This appeal is from that judgment.

Seven errors are assigned, all to the effect that the findings are not supported by the evidence.

We have carefully examined the evidence and concluded therefrom that the findings are fully sustained by it. On some material points there is a substantial conflict' in the evidence, and under the well-established rule of this court, where that occurs, the judgment will not be reversed. It will serve no good purpose in this opinion to quote extensively from the evidence or to review it to any extent.

The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

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

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This suit was commenced by the plaintiff, who is appellant, to quiet the title to lots 7 and 8 in block 8 of Canyon Addition to the city of Wallace, Shoshone county. The defendant answered by denying the allegations of the complaint and by way of cross-complaint sought affirmative relief and prayed to have her title quieted to said lots. The appellant did not answer said cross-complaint and default was entered against him. The action was tried by the court without a jury and findings of fact and conclusions of law were made by the court and judgment entered in favor of the defendant, quieting the title to said lots in her. This appeal is from that judgment.

Seven errors are assigned, all to the effect that the findings are not supported by the evidence.

We have carefully examined the evidence and concluded therefrom that the findings are fully sustained by it. On some material points there is a substantial conflict' in the evidence, and under the well-established rule of this court, where that occurs, the judgment will not be reversed. It will serve no good purpose in this opinion to quote extensively from the evidence or to review it to any extent.

The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 P. 343, 18 Idaho 23, 1910 Ida. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomsche-v-hummel-idaho-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack