Betts v. Butler
Idaho Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe second judicial district, Boise eounty. This action was for tbe recovery of money, and in sucb case it is an absolute and unqualified rule that “when a verdict is found for the plaintiff,” “ the jury shall also find the amount of the recovery.” (Pr. Act, sec. 176, p. 114; Idaho Stats. 1863-4.) These prerequisites must both occur in order that the verdict may support a judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe second judicial district, Boise eounty. This action was for tbe recovery of money, and in sucb case it is an absolute and unqualified rule that “when a verdict is found for the plaintiff,” “ the jury shall also find the amount of the recovery.” (Pr. Act, sec. 176, p. 114; Idaho Stats. 1863-4.) These prerequisites must both occur in order that the verdict may support a judgment. The jury found “for plaintiff,” but did not “also find the amount of the recovery.” Another error apparent from the judgment roll is that the judgment is in contravention of the act of congress of…
1Opinion of the CourtCummins, J.
MoBride, C. J., and Kelly, J., concurring.
The plaintiff in his complaint demands judgment for the sum of four hundred and twenty dollars on a promissory note, of which he avers he is the owner and holder, and which it is declared was made and executed by the defendants. The only issue, as appears from the record presented to the jury, was fraud in the execution of the note; that it was executed by one having no authority, and under-circumstances which were a fraud upon the rights of the defendants making this answer, namely, Taylor and Andrews.
It is admitted by the pleadings that there was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burhans v. TibbitsNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Milliken v. SloatNevada Supreme Court · 1865
- Curiac v. AbadieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Williams v. WillisNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1858
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cox v. SnowIdaho Supreme Court · 1929