Parker v. Beagle
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Latah County. In rendering judgment in this action there were no findings of fact or conclusions of law separately stated. The statute is mandatory. A finding is required on every material issue. Without it the judgment cannot be supported. For thiá error the judgment should be reversed. There was no waiver.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Latah County. In rendering judgment in this action there were no findings of fact or conclusions of law separately stated. The statute is mandatory. A finding is required on every material issue. Without it the judgment cannot be supported. For thiá error the judgment should be reversed. There was no waiver. (Idaho Rev. Stats., secs. 4407, 4408; Emeric v. Alvarado, 64 Cal. 529, 603, 2 Pac. 418; Figg v. Mayo, 39 Cal. 265, Brezo v. Doyle, 19 Cal. 101; Lucas v. Ban Francisco, 28 Gal. 576; Trains v. Pacific etc. Go., 35 Cal. 35; 3 Deering’s Codes, sec. 633, and notes.)…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage. The appeal is from the judgment presented on the judgment-roll. The error assigned is: “The court erred in giving its decision, and not making findings of fact as well as conclusions of law, and stating them separately.” The record contains no findings of facts or conclusions of law, separately stated, and none whatever, except those contained in the decree and judgment. Section 4408 of the Revised Statutes provides that findings of fact may be waived, and, as the record does not show affirmatively that findings of fact were not *454waived, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Toulouse v. BurkettIdaho Supreme Court · 1887
- Squier v. LowenbergIdaho Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kirkpatrick v. KirkpatrickIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
- McCornick v. FriedmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1901