TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edwards v. Anderson

E. E. EDWARDS v. PERCY ANDERSON

Edwards v. Anderson, 130 P. 1001 (Idaho 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 4, 1913
Judges
Ailshie, Stewart, Sullivan
Citations
130 P. 100123 Idaho 5081913 Ida. LEXIS 84
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 2
Syllabus
Evidence — Review of on Appeal — Transcript—Stenographer's Notes —Settlement of — Motion to Dismiss. 1. Under the provisions of subd. 3 of see. 4434, Rev. Codes, as • amended by laws of 1911, p. 379, the transcript of the evidence certified to by the stenographer must be settled by the trial judge in order to have the same reviewed upon appeal. 2. Where a motion to dismiss an appeal is made on the ground that the stenographer’s transcript was not ‘ settled as required by the provisions of subd. 3 of sec. 4434, and such motion is made within the time required by Buie 54 of the rules of this court, the motion must be granted and the appeal dismissed. 3. Held, under the record that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed on the merits.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Lemhi County. Hon. James M. Stevens, Judge. Action to recover balance alleged to be due on book account. Judgment for plaintiff. An account is not “mutual” unless the parties have dealt with each other in the same relation and unless items upon ■different sides of account are capable of being set off against ■each other. Demands must be “reciprocal” — that is, they must be of such character that each party has immediate right ■of action against the other. (Millet v. Bradbury, 109 Cal. 174, 41 Pae. 865; Lockwood v. Hansen, 16 Or. 102, 17 Pae. •575; Fraylor v. Sonora M. Go., 17 Cal. 594; Flynn v. Seale, 2 Cal. App. 665, 84 Pae. 263.) There was substantial evidence in support of the findings of the court, and particularly of the finding “That said account is a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between said parties,” and under a well-established rule of law and of this court such findings will not be disturbed on. appeal. (Sec. 4824, Rev. Codes; Seanvell v. Pacific & I. N. By. Go., 21 Ida. 277, 121 Pac. 556; Buster v. Fletcher, 22 Ida. 172, 125 Pae. 230; Salisbury v. Spofford, 22 Ida. 393, 126 Pae. 400.)

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 to recover a balance of $308.20 alleged to be due on open book account. The defense was the statute of limitations.

*510 The action was tried to the court without a jury and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $302.20, with interest thereon, and costs. The appeal is from the judgment.

We are first met by a motion to dismiss the appeal on several grounds, among which is the ground that the reporter’s transcript was not settled as required by law. On an examination of the transcript, we find that it was not settled by the judge as required by the provisions of subd. 3 of sec. 4434, as amended by the laws of 1911, p. 379. This court had this question before it in Grisinger v. Hubbard, 21 Ida. 469 , 122 Pac. 853 , and held that under the provisions of said see. 4434 the party appealing must procure a transcript of the stenographer’s notes and have the same settled and allowed by the trial judge in accordance with the provisions of subd. 3 of said section. And in Furey v. Taylor, 22 Ida. 605 , 127 Pac. 676 , this court held that the transcript of the evidence certified to by the stenographer must be settled by the trial judge in order to have the same reviewed upon appeal to this court. Those decisions are decisive of this motion, and the motion must be sustained and the appeal dismissed. Said motion was made within the time prescribed by Rule 54 of the rules of this court.

We have, however, carefully examined the record in the case and find no error in the record that would warrant a reversal of the judgment. The judgment is therefore affirmed on its merits, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Ailshie, C. J., and Stewart, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 11915: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fischer v. Davis133 P. 910 (Idaho 1913)
  2. Chapman v. A. H. Averill Machinery Co.152 P. 593 (Idaho 1915)

Most recent

  1. Chapman v. A. H. Averill Machinery Co.152 P. 593 (Idaho 1915)
  2. Fischer v. Davis133 P. 910 (Idaho 1913)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Grisinger v. Hubbard, 122 P. 853 (Idaho 1912) 20
Furey v. Taylor, 127 P. 676 (Idaho 1912) 15

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