Work Bros. v. Kinney
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Blaine County. Where the evidence can support only one verdict the court will direct it. (Coffin v. Hutchinson, 22 Or. 554, 30 Pac. 434.) It is proper for tbe court to direct a verdict in all cases where there is no disputed question of fact to be submitted to the jury.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Blaine County. Where the evidence can support only one verdict the court will direct it. (Coffin v. Hutchinson, 22 Or. 554, 30 Pac. 434.) It is proper for tbe court to direct a verdict in all cases where there is no disputed question of fact to be submitted to the jury. (Gwinn v. Gwinn, 5 Idaho, 371, 48 Pac. 303; Arimjo v. New Mexico T. Co., 3 N. Mex. 244, 5 Pae. 709.) Where there is no conflict in the evidence the court may properly direct a verdict. (Mwrtin v. Ward, 69 Cal. 129, 10 Pac. 276; McCormick v. Holmes, 41 Kan. 265, 21 Pac. 108; Clancy v. Reis, 5 Wash.…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, J.
This action was commenced by the appellants against the respondents to recover damages against the respondent Kinney upon his official bond as sheriff of Alturas county, the other respondents being sureties of said sheriff upon said official band. The case was tried before the court and a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the respondents. The appellants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they appeal to this court from the order denying them a new trial.
The facts alleged in the complaint are, briefly stated, as follows: February 9, 1888, appellants commenced an action against…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Toulouse v. BurkettIdaho Supreme Court · 1887
- Work Bros. v. KinneyIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by9 opinions
- Peterson v. Universal Automobile InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1933
- Woodman v. KnightIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
- Klam v. BoehmIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- Schoenick v. SmalleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
- Sneddon v. BirchIdaho Supreme Court · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.