Darling v. Fremstadt
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District for Cassia County. Hon. C. 0. Stockslager, Judge. Action to recover a debt. Judgment for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial made; denied.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District for Cassia County. Hon. C. 0. Stockslager, Judge. Action to recover a debt. Judgment for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial made; denied. No application was made to the court for an extension of time in which to file counter-affidavits, and the statute being mandatory, and the period therein provided having expired, the court was without jurisdiction to either consider said counter-affidavits or order them filed nunc pro tunc, as it did nearly three months thereafter. (Swartz v. Davis, 9 Ida. 238, 74 Pae. 800; Sandstrom, v. Smith,…
1Concurrence
AILSHIE, J.,
Concurring in Part. — I concur in an affirmance of the judgment. It seems, however, that the court is going to a great length and contrary to a long line of decisions of this court in holding that affidavits on motion for a new trial may be filed and considered after the expiration of the time granted by statute. This court has uniformly maintained a contrary doctrine, as will be seen from the following eases: Hoehnan v. New York Dry Goods Co., 8 Ida. 66, 67 Pac. 796; Swartz v. Davis, 9 Ida. 238, 74 Pac. 800; Sandstrom v. Smith, 11 Ida. 779, 84 Pac. 1060; Moe v. Barger, 10 Ida.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Moe v. HargerIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- Bank of Commerce, Ltd. v. BaldwinIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Sandstrom v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Swartz v. DavisIdaho Supreme Court · 1903
- Hoehnan v. New York Drygoods Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.