Rumpel v. Oregon Short Line Railway Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Ada County. Dnder our statutes, as construed by this court, there is no-substantial difference between a statement and a bill of exceptions. The name given to the document is of little consequence.. If it brings here the rulings or decisions of the court below, the-objections and exceptions thereto, and is duly certified, it should be treated for what it is, and not for what it may have been called.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Ada County. Dnder our statutes, as construed by this court, there is no-substantial difference between a statement and a bill of exceptions. The name given to the document is of little consequence.. If it brings here the rulings or decisions of the court below, the-objections and exceptions thereto, and is duly certified, it should be treated for what it is, and not for what it may have been called. In this case it is clearly a bill of exceptions, is certified as such and must be so considered. (Bradbury v. Idaho etc. Land etc. Co., 2 Idaho, 239, 10 Pac. 620;…
1Opinion of the CourtMobgan, J.
(After Stating the Facts.) — The record presents to us a statement on motion for new trial, which contains what purports to be a statement of all the evidence in the ease, together with the objections to the admission of evidence, the rulings of the district court thereon, and the exceptions thereto. Appended to the statement is the following certificate:
“State of Idaho, )
“County of Ada. JSS'
“At chambers, this statement settled and allowed in the presence of Edgar Wilson, attorney for defendant, and T. D. Cabalan, attorney for plaintiff, to which ruling and action of the undersigned the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Schofield v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hudson v. Wabash Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PinchinIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. CopelandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
- Galena v. DillIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Petricevich v. Salmon River Canal CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1969
- Wheeler v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Carson v. City of GeneseeIdaho Supreme Court · 1903
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. NaiveTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
- Calcaterra v. IovaldiMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.