TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Lowenberg

T. CLARK & BRO. v. J. LOWENBERG & BRO.

Clark v. Lowenberg, 1 Idaho 654 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1877
Judges
Clark, Hollister, Prickett, Tins, Took
Citations
1 Idaho 654
Headnotes
Practice — Undertaking on Appeal. — If the undertaking on appeal is filed before the notice of appeal is served, the appeal-is not effectual for any purpose, and it must be dismissed.
Summary
Appeal from the first judicial district, Nez Perce county. Motion to dismiss the appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Prickett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PRICKETT, J.,

delivered the opinion.

Hollister, C. J., concurring. Clark, J., took no part in tins case.

The notice of appeal in this case was filed on the twentieth day of October, 1876. It was served on the twenty-fourth day of October. The undertaking was executed on the eighteenth, and filed on the twentieth day of October, 1876. With this state of facts, the question now is, has this court jurisdiction ? Section 438 of the civil practice act of the eighth session laws, relating to appeals, provides that “the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose, unless within five days of the service of the notice of appeal, an undertaking be filed,” etc. In order to constitute an effectual appeal to this court, three things are necessary: First, filing the notice; Second, service of the same; and, Third, filing the undertaking. All of these steps must be taken' within the times limited by statute. If not so taken, there is no appeal effected, and this court has no jurisdiction of the case. The undertaking in this appeal was filed too soon. The statute does not permit the undertaking to be filed until after the service of the notice; and therefore until such service, there is nothing for the undertaking to operate on. It has no office or function to perform. The case stands therefore as if no undertaking had been given, and there was no appeal perfected.

The appeal is dismissed, but without prejudice.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1886–1887: 11922–1923: 11928–1929: 11932–1933: 118862026peak 1886 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Salt Lake Brewing Co. v. Gillman10 P. 32 (Idaho 1886)
  2. People's Savings & Trust Co. v. Rayl265 P. 703 (Idaho 1928)
  3. Isaak v. Journey13 P.2d 247 (Idaho 1932)
  4. Healy v. Taylor218 P. 190 (Idaho 1923)

Most recent

  1. Isaak v. Journey13 P.2d 247 (Idaho 1932)
  2. People's Savings & Trust Co. v. Rayl265 P. 703 (Idaho 1928)
  3. Healy v. Taylor218 P. 190 (Idaho 1923)
  4. Salt Lake Brewing Co. v. Gillman10 P. 32 (Idaho 1886)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list