Skip to content

City of Wallace v. Deane

City of Wallace v. Deane, 69 P. 62 (Idaho 1902)

Court: Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: May 15, 1902
Judges: Quarles, Stockslager, Sullivan
Citations: 69 P. 628 Idaho 3441902 Ida. LEXIS 17

Cited by 5

Syllabus

Dismissal of Appeal — Injunction—-Ineffectual Relief. — Upon an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction, where it is made to appear in the appellate court that the cause in which the injunction issued has been finally determined in the lower court, and no appeal taken from the final judgment, and the time in which to take an appeal from such final order has expired, the appellate court will' on motion dismiss the appeal on the ground that it would be an idle act either to affirm or reverse the order dissolving such injunction. (Syllabus by the court.)

Summary

APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County. If the order determined all the questions in issue, and did not adjourn the matter for further consideration, it is a final decree. (Richmond v. Atwood, 52 Fed. 10, 17 L. R. A. 615.) When a bill seeks no other relief, an order vacating an injunction is appealable; and where the order operates to dismiss the bill it is a final disposition of the case. (Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Or. 517, 26 Pac. 851; Pentecost v. Magahee, 5 111. 326.) “Where the time has passed wherein a receivership or an injunction would be of avail, the court will not award it.” (Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Lewis, 156 Ind. 232, 59 N. E. 466; State v. Board of Gornmrs., 153 Ind. 302, 54 N. E. 809; In re Manning, 139 N. Y. 446, 34 N. E. 931.) Appeal from an order denying an injunction pendente lite will be dismissed, when the issuance of such injunction would be a vain and frivolous act. (Poster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, 47 Pae. 591; Herring v. Pugh, 125 N. C. 437, 34 S. E. 538; State v. Otero, 52 La. Ann. 1, 26 South. 812.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Quarles

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

QUARLES, C. J.

— This is an appeal from an order of the district court dissolving a temporary injunction theretofore granted by said district court in this action, which order so appealed from was made and entered on the sixth day of August, 1900. It was made to appear in this court that afterward, on the fifth day of November, 1900, a final judgment in favor of the respondents was entered in this action in the district court, whereby said action was terminated. It is also made to appear that no appeal from said final judgment has been taken, and that the time for taking such appeal has expired. Upon these grounds the respondents move to dismiss this appeal. This motion must be sustained. A review of the action of the district court upon the motion to dissolve said temporary injunction would be an idle act upon the part of this court. That order, if erroneous, must stand. Its reversal would accomplish no useful or beneficial purpose to anyone, *346 and would not affect the status of the parties, as the controversy has long since ended.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Sullivan and Stockslager, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts5

Relies on it most ⓘ

Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp.105 So. 126 (Fla. 1925)
Lebak v. Nelson107 P.2d 1054 (Idaho 1940)
Abels v. Turner Trust Co.176 P. 884 (Idaho 1918)
Graves v. Berry207 P. 718 (Idaho 1922)
Coburn v. Thornton164 P. 1012 (Idaho 1917)

Most recent

Lebak v. Nelson107 P.2d 1054 (Idaho 1940)
Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp.105 So. 126 (Fla. 1925)
Graves v. Berry207 P. 718 (Idaho 1922)
Abels v. Turner Trust Co.176 P. 884 (Idaho 1918)
Coburn v. Thornton164 P. 1012 (Idaho 1917)

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.