Stinson v. Rourke
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County. The court erred in giving to the jury the following instructions, to wit: “You are further instructed that while one person cannot make another his debtor without the consent of the latter, or -recover for services rendered for another without a request, express or implied, yet, if one stands by and sees another doing work for him, beneficial in its nature, and overlooks it as it progresses and does not interfere to prevent or…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County. The court erred in giving to the jury the following instructions, to wit: “You are further instructed that while one person cannot make another his debtor without the consent of the latter, or -recover for services rendered for another without a request, express or implied, yet, if one stands by and sees another doing work for him, beneficial in its nature, and overlooks it as it progresses and does not interfere to prevent or forbid it, but appropriates such labor to-his own use, then, in the absence of a special contract, a request will be…
1Opinion of the CourtMobgan, C. J.
(After Stating the Facts) . — The witnesses, being assignors of the claims upon which suit is brought, testified that one G. V. Hamilton, who claimed to be the agent of Bourke, the defendant, came upon the ground where the wheat was grown, on the Indian reservation in Latah county, Idaho, and employed them to work in the harvesting and threshing of the wheat raised by Bergevin Brothers & Martin, and upon which the defendant held a mortgage. As evidence of hio right to *768make contracts for the defendant, Rourke, Hamilton exhibited a letter of attorney from the defendant, of the following tenor:
'‘…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gardner v. HobbsIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
- Asumendi v. FergusonIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Rudolph v. WannamakerIdaho Supreme Court · 1925