Dahlstrom v. Portland Mining Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
ORIGINAL application in this court for writ of review. Motion to quash. A writ of review does not lie where there is a remedy by appeal. (People v. Lindsay, 1 Idaho, 394; Graham v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. 217,15 Pae. 746; Hayes v. First Judicial Dist.
Read the full summary
ORIGINAL application in this court for writ of review. Motion to quash. A writ of review does not lie where there is a remedy by appeal. (People v. Lindsay, 1 Idaho, 394; Graham v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. 217,15 Pae. 746; Hayes v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 11 Mont. 225, 28 Pac. 259; Rogers v. Hayes, 3 Idaho, 597, 32 Pae. 259; Noble v. Superior Court, 109 Cal. 523, 42 Pae. 155; State v. District Court, 27 Mont. 179, 70 Pae. 516; State v. Justice Court, 31 Mont. 258, 78 Pac. 498.) The writ of review will not lie because the time limit for taking an appeal has expired. (McCue v. Superior…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
This is an original application in this court for a writ of review. It is set forth in the complaint or petition for the writ that on September 2, 1895, the Portland *90Mining Company executed promissory notes aggregating $49,338.64 to Clora Markle Dahlstrom, and notes aggregating $39,476.26 to Alvin Markle, and secured all of said promissory notes by mortgages on property in Shoshone county, Idaho, the mortgage being given to the Markle Banking and Trust Company of Hazleton, state of Pennsylvania, as trustee; that on December 5, 1902, a judgment decreeing the foreclosure of said mortgages to…
2Cited by12 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Pocatello v. PolingIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Utah Ass'n of Credit Men v. BudgeIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Oatman v. HamptonIdaho Supreme Court · 1927
- Aker v. AkerIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
- Beus v. TerrellIdaho Supreme Court · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.