Edminston v. Steele
Idaho Supreme Court
OKIGINAL application for a writ of prohibition. Defendant demurred to the petition. A bond intended for both stay and appeal, but insufficient for both purposes, is still good as an appeal bond, if it contains all the necessary conditions of an undertaking on appeal.
Read the full summary
OKIGINAL application for a writ of prohibition. Defendant demurred to the petition. A bond intended for both stay and appeal, but insufficient for both purposes, is still good as an appeal bond, if it contains all the necessary conditions of an undertaking on appeal. (Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, see. 213; Zoller v. McDonald. 23 Cal. 136; Ward v. Superior Court, 58 Cal. 519; Dobbins v. Dollarhide, 15 Cal. 374; Mokelumne Hill G. & M. Co. v. Woodberry, 10 Cal. 186; Zapp v. Michaelis, 56 Tex. 395; Cruger v. Douglas, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 81; Balph v. Hoggart, 2 La. Ann. 462; 'Lewis v. Splane, 2 La.…
1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, J.
This is an application for a writ of prohibition. To the plaintiff’s petition the defendant had demurred on the ground that the petition does not state facts sufficient to entitle her to the relief demanded. This application grows out of the following state of facts: The plaintiff, Mary E. Edminston, commenced an action in the justice court and obtained a judgment for the total sum of $86.40. The defendant in that action, Martha Smith, served and filed her notice of appeal, and gave an undertaking in the following *615form: “Whereas, the above-named defendant, Martha Smith, desires to give an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Zoller v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- O'Keefe v. WeberOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Town of Sumner v. RogersWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- Douglas v. Badger State MineWashington Supreme Court · 1905
- Duffy v. GreenebaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Libby v. Spokane Valley Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Denman v. MartinIdaho Supreme Court · 1958