Kelly v. Leachman
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perees County. The motion of respondent is _to dismiss the appeal. It is based on the “ground that the undertaking on appeal .... is insufficient and void for uncertainty.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perees County. The motion of respondent is _to dismiss the appeal. It is based on the “ground that the undertaking on appeal .... is insufficient and void for uncertainty.” The condition portion of the bond is as follows: “Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of such appeal from said judgment and from said order, we, the undersigned residents of the county of Nez Perees, in the state of Idaho, do hereby jointly and severally undertake and promise on the part of appellant that the said appellants will pay all damages and costs which may be…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, C. J.
This is an appeal from the judgment and order overruling motion for a new trial. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the undertaking was void 'for uncertainty. In the ^preamble of the undertaking it is recited that the appeal is from the judgment, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial. And in the obligation the obligors agreed that said appellants will pay all damages and costs that may be awarded against them on the “appeal.” On the authority of Sebree v. Smith, 2 Idaho, 359, 16 Pac. 477; Motherwell v. Taylor, 2 Idaho, 148, 9 Pac. 417, Eddy v. Vanness, 2…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Motherwell v. TaylorIdaho Supreme Court · 1886
- Sebree v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1888
- Eddy v. Van NessIdaho Supreme Court · 1885
- Sebree v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1888
- Schiller v. SmallIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by5 opinions
- Baker v. Butte City Water Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1900
- Marine Mart v. KrugerIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Wallace v. McKinlayIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
- Hampton v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Thum v. BaileyIdaho Supreme Court · 1906