TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dernham v. Lieuallen

Dernham v. Lieuallen, 43 P. 74 (Idaho 1895)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 14, 1895
Judges
Huston, Morgan, Sullivan
Citations
43 P. 744 Idaho 5281895 Ida. LEXIS 67
Syllabus
Dill of Exceptions- — Application to Settle.. — Where an application is made to this court to settle exceptions under section 4432 of the Revised Statutes and paragraph 1, rule 12, rules of this court, and the applicant prays to have such exceptions as are set out in Ms exhibit No. 7, and fails to .submit such exhibit, the court has nothing to act on, and the application will he denied. (Syllabus by the court.)
Summary
An original proceeding in the. supreme court, to settle a bill of exceptions under section 4432 of the Revised Statutes. No briefs filed. No argument made.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sullivan

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

SULLIVAN, J.

This is a petition for the allowance of a bill of exceptions, claimed to have been brought under the provisions of section 4432 of the Revised Statutes, for the ■allowance of a bill of exceptions on behalf of the defendant. Paragraph 1, rule 12, of the rules of this court, provides that the petition must be filed with the clerk of this court within thirty days after such refusal, and a copy of the petition served upon the adverse party, and that the facts may be presented by certified copies of the record, stenographer’s notes duly verified or affidavits, and, if necessary, oral testimony. 'The petition was served and filed in proper time. The petition is submitted without brief or oral argument on behalf of ■either of the parties. The petitioner prays for the settlement ■of his bill of exceptions, “as set out in exhibit No. 7, herewith submitted,” and fails to submit said exhibit. There are only .six exhibits submitted with the petition, numbered from 1 to ■6. The proposed bill of exceptions is neither of the six. We therefore cannot settle the proposed bill of exceptions, for the reason that it is not before us. The application is not allowed, for that reason.

Morgan, C. J., and Huston, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1908: 11917: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. American Falls Canal & Power Co.95 P. 1059 (Idaho 1908)
  2. Hansen v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.168 P. 163 (Idaho 1917)

Most recent

  1. Hansen v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.168 P. 163 (Idaho 1917)
  2. Smith v. American Falls Canal & Power Co.95 P. 1059 (Idaho 1908)

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