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
ON REHEARING.
QUARLES, J.
The question that is raised in this case by petition for rehearing has been prolific of annoyance to the court, but has been fully settled by repeated decisions. Where there are two appeals, there need be only one undertaking on both; but the undertaking must be so worded that the sureties will be liable for the costs that may be awarded against the appellant on either of the appeals, or on a dismissal of either of said appeals. If two appeals are taken, and the undertaking binds the sureties with certainty to pay the costs that may be awarded on one of the appeals…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Douglas v. DouglasIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- Cronin v. Bear Creek Gold Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1892
- Mathison v. LelandIdaho Supreme Court · 1878
- McCoy v. OldhamIdaho Supreme Court · 1873
- Young v. TinerIdaho Supreme Court · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.