Schiller v. Small
SCHILLER v. SMALL and PETERS v. SMALL
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
HUSTON, J.
These are appeals from the same judgment and order denying motion for new trial. A motion to dismiss in each case is made upon the grounds: 1. That the appeal was not taken in time; 2. That no undertaking on appeal has been filed.
The action was for a foreclosure of a mortgage.- Decree was entered June 27, 1893. Notice of appeal was filed on June 29, 1894, and served on July 21, 1894. The appeal was not taken within the year prescribed by statute. The appeal was taken from both the judgment and the order denying motion for a new trial. The undertaking is conditioned for the payment of all damages and costs which may be awarded .against appellants “on the appeal,” without designating which appeal. This question has been so often and so recently decided by this court that *423 it is strange we should be again called upon to repeat the decision. (McCoy v. Oldham, 1 Idaho, 465 ; Mathison v. Leland, 1 Idaho, 712 ; Eddy v. Van Ness, 2 Idaho, 101 , 6 Pac. 115 ; Cronin v. Mining Co., 3 Idaho, 438 , 32 Pac. 53 .) Motion to dismiss allowed, with costs to respondents.
Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.