Prout v. Mounce
Idaho Supreme Court
Original proceeding in Supreme Court. Plaintiffs by tbeir -counsel were entitled to notice of the petition or motion asking this court for the order which they have obtained without notice. (Bev.
Read the full summary
Original proceeding in Supreme Court. Plaintiffs by tbeir -counsel were entitled to notice of the petition or motion asking this court for the order which they have obtained without notice. (Bev. Stats., secs. 4882, 4892-4894.) Certainly in this case no order, if any, should be made that can be construed into anything more than an authorization to settle the statement leaving with the lower court all discretionary powers arising from the delays of defendants and the conditions of the case. (Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, sec. 165; Boggs v. Olark, 37 Cal. 236 (less than two months); Ghábot v.…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, J.
— The defendants presented to this court, April 19, 1899, a petition, duly verified by the oath of James W. Eeid, in which the following allegations are made, to wit:
"1. That he is the attorney of Eva K. Mounee et al., in a certain action which has long since been pressed to judgment in the district court of the second judicial district in and for the county of Nez Perces and state of Idaho, wherein Mary A. Prout et al. are plaintiffs and Eva K. Mounee et al. are defendants. 2. That in said cause judgment has been heretofore rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and against the defendants, such…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chabot v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Boggs v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Hopkins v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Taylor v. GreenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926