Legal Opinion

Kissler v. Budge

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1913PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Original action for writ of prohibition. The provisions of sec. 4915, Rev. Codes, are mandatory, and when the judge’s attention was called to the fact that no statutory bond had been given, he had no discretion in the matter and his order transferring the cause to Power county was in direct violation of the statute, which stays the proceedings ipso facto.

Read the full summary

Original action for writ of prohibition. The provisions of sec. 4915, Rev. Codes, are mandatory, and when the judge’s attention was called to the fact that no statutory bond had been given, he had no discretion in the matter and his order transferring the cause to Power county was in direct violation of the statute, which stays the proceedings ipso facto. (Meade County Bank v. Bailey, 137 Cal. 447, 70 Pac. 297.) The provisions’ of see. 4916 are clearly for the benefit of de* fendants in case the plaintiff shall fail to file a bond within the time required, and this, in connection with see.…

1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, C. J.

Plaintiff applied to this court for a writ of prohibition, and an alternative writ was issued and an answer and return has been filed, and defendant has also moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition does not state sufficient facts to justify the issuance of the writ.

It appears that on February 12, 1913, a complaint was filed in the district court of the fifth judicial district in and for Oneida county by the Union Iron Works, a foreign corporation, as plaintiff, against Conrad Kissler, as defendant. A writ of attachment issued and certain property belonging to the defendant was levied…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Meade County Bank v. BaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Sciutti v. Union Pac. Coal Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Domer v. StoneIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Duff v. EardleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Potter v. KearneyArizona Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Van Denburgh v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Hertz v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API