Brossard v. Morgan
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. In this cause there is no necessity for a new trial, as the decree is subject to the control of the court, and may be changed or altered by the court if he shall deem it necessary to correct it, to make it conform to the facts and the law.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. In this cause there is no necessity for a new trial, as the decree is subject to the control of the court, and may be changed or altered by the court if he shall deem it necessary to correct it, to make it conform to the facts and the law. (Idaho Rev. Stats., sec. 4229; McMillian v. Woolley, ante, p. 36, 51 Pac. 1029, 1032.) Where an erroneous judgment or decree has been entered, the proper practice is to make a motion to correct or modify the erroneous judgment or decree. Such application should be made within six months after the judgment was…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. It appears that, after the motion for a new trial was made, the appellant, who was the defendant, interposed a motion to correct the decree, so as to maim it contain the following, to wit: “That the said John T. Morgan, is entitled to, and adjudged and decreed the right to, the use of one-third of the water of Stockton creek, by prescription.” The record •does not inform us whether said motion was passed upon by the court. The motion for a new trial was granted, which resulted in a denial of the motion to correct the decree. The judgment…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Pacific Rolling Mill Co. v. Telegraph Hill Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by13 opinions
- O'DELL v. BasabeIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
- Rosenberg v. ToetlyIdaho Supreme Court · 1969
- Say v. HodginIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Wolfe v. RidleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- MacDonald v. OganIdaho Supreme Court · 1940
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.