Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Kinney

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1890PublishedCited by 3 opinions

APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. Before tbe judgment could be attacked, the findings must be set aside, because not justified by the evidence, and this could only be done on motion for a new trial. (Reed v. Bernal, 40 Cal. 628.) When a court draws erroneous conclusions of law from its findings of facts, it is a decision against law, for which a new trial should be granted.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. Before tbe judgment could be attacked, the findings must be set aside, because not justified by the evidence, and this could only be done on motion for a new trial. (Reed v. Bernal, 40 Cal. 628.) When a court draws erroneous conclusions of law from its findings of facts, it is a decision against law, for which a new trial should be granted. (Simmons v. Hamilton, 56 Cal. 493; Martin v. Matfield, 49 Cal. 42; Knight v. Roche, 56 Cal. 15.) There being no issue of facts, the facts being all conceded, the court could commit no error as to them, nor could…

1Opinion of the CourtSweet, J.

On the twenty-third day of November, 1887, M. H. Lipman, a citizen of Utah, doing business at Salt Lake City, made an assignment to plaintiff herein in trust for all his creditors. The deed of assignment carried with it certain personal property situated in Hailey, Alturas county, Idaho territory, to wit, a stock of goods and merchandise. It is admitted that at the time the assignment was made said Lipman was insolvent; that in all respects the assignment was made in conformity with the laws of Utah territory; and that, under said deed of assignment, the creditors of said assignor were…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Green v. Van BuskirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Sheldon v. BlauveltSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1888
  3. J. M. Atherton Co. v. IvesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky · 1884

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Athay v. StaceyIdaho Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Bloomingdale v. WeilWashington Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Will T. Little Co. v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API