Parkinson v. Winzler
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
MCCARTHY, j.
Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the transcript was not filed in this court within 90 days after the appeal was perfected as required by Rule 26, no extension of time having been granted by an order of this court of a justice thereof. The facts are as claimed. An order extending the time was obtained from a justice, but was not effective since made after the expiration of the 90 day period. (Stout v. Cunningham, 29 Ida. 809, 162 Pac. 928.)
*450“Where a transcript on appeal has not been filed within the time limited by the rules, or an extension thereof, such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stout v. CunninghamIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. v. First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
3Cited by4 opinions
- Utana Mining Corp. v. Salmon River Power & Light Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Gates v. Todd Commercial Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Nielson v. Board of County CommissionersIdaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Pearl v. WestonIdaho Supreme Court · 1923