TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Union Savings, Building & Trust Co. v. McClain

UNION SAVINGS, BUILDING & TRUST CO., a Corporation v. MATTHEW McCLAIN, and ELI LARSON, Trustee

Union Sav. v. McClain, 130 P. 84 (Idaho 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 5, 1913
Judges
Stewart, Sullivan
Citations
130 P. 8423 Idaho 3251913 Ida. LEXIS 60
Disposition
Judgment affirmed.
Syllabus
Evidence — Sufficiency of — Opening Case — Additional Evidence. 1. The evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding of facts. 2. Held, that the court did not err in opening the ease and permitting the parties to- introduce additional evidence.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. John F. MaeLane Judge. Action to determine the title of the respective parties to certain lands bordering on Boise river. Counsel for the appellant McClain contends that reopening this case was abuse of discretion, and prejudicial to appellant. (State v. Main, 31 Conn. 572; Pearson v. South, 61 Iowa, 232, 16 N. W. 99; Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 184, 82 Am. Dec. 79; Ency. of Ev. 234.) When findings are unsupported by the evidence, the judgment will be reversed. (Hedge v. Williams, 131 Cal. 455, 82 Am. St. 366, 63 Pac. 721, 64 Pac. 106; Brooks v. Clifton, 22 Ark. 54; Michener v. Bengel, 135 Ind. 188, 34 N. E. 664, 816; Moore v. Hutchinson, 69 Mo. 429; Eastman v. Currey, 15 Utah, 410, 49 Pae. 310.)

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 action was brought by one of the appellants, the Union Savings, Building & Trust Co., a corporation, to quiet title to all of block 1 and Point Park in Boise City, Park subdivision, as the same appears in the official plat of said subdivision filed in the office of the county recorder of Ada county. The defendant McClain, who is one of the appellants here, and Eli Larson, trustee, who is the respondent, filed answers and cross-complaints, in which they sought to have the title quieted to certain parts of said land in themselves.

A trial was had to the court without a jury upon the issues thus made, and finding of facts was made upon the material issues made by the pleadings, and judgment and decree entered declaring the rights of each of the parties and describing the lands to which each was entitled.

The plaintiff, the Union Savings Building & Trust Co., and the defendant Matthew McClain each appealed from said judgment. The main contention of the .trust company on this appeal is that the findings are not supported by the evidence *327 and are contradictory; and of.the appellant McClain, that the evidence does not support the findings and that the court erred in opening the case and taking additional testimony.

We have made careful examination of the evidence and find it in some parts conflicting, but are fully satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings of the court. We also conclude that the court did not err in opening the case and taking additional evidence.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent, each of the appellants to pay one-half of the costs of the appeal.

Stewart, J., concurs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1920: 11923: 11948: 11958: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gridley v. Ross217 P. 989 (Idaho 1923)
  2. Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.190 P. 255 (Idaho 1920)
  3. SPOKANE MERCHANTS'ASSOCIATION v. Olmstead327 P.2d 385 (Idaho 1958)
  4. State v. Kenworthy193 P.2d 838 (Idaho 1948)

Most recent

  1. SPOKANE MERCHANTS'ASSOCIATION v. Olmstead327 P.2d 385 (Idaho 1958)
  2. State v. Kenworthy193 P.2d 838 (Idaho 1948)
  3. Gridley v. Ross217 P. 989 (Idaho 1923)
  4. Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.190 P. 255 (Idaho 1920)

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