Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Hewlett

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1928No. 5319PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtWm. E. Lee, C. J.

It is sought to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no undertaking for costs required by C. S., sec. 7153 has been filed. Appellant insists that the following is sufficient as such an undertaking:

“Whereas, .... A. J. Hewlett has appealed .... from a judgment .... and
“Whereas, the said A. J. Hewlett desires to give supersedeas undertaking on such appeal for the purpose of securing a stay of execution as required and provided by section 7155, Idaho Compiled Statutes;
“Now, therefore, said A. J. Hewlett, as principal, and W. D. Service and L. G. Hewlett, as sureties, do hereby obligate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Weiser River Fruit Ass'n v. FelthamIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Van Sicklin v. Mayfield Land & Livestock Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Meservy v. Idaho Irrigation Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Wall v. WoodsIdaho Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Marine Mart v. KrugerIdaho Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API