TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hufton v. Hufton

HESTER B. HUFTON v. WILLIAM HUFTON

Hufton v. Hufton, 136 P. 605 (Idaho 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 6, 1913
Judges
Ailshie, Stewart, Sullivan
Citations
136 P. 60525 Idaho 961913 Ida. LEXIS 14
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Action for Divorce — Conflict in Evidence. 1. Where there is a substantial conflict in evidence, the findings of faet and judgment based thereon -will not be set aside on appeal.
Summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge. Action for divorce. Judgment for defendant. ■ “The findings of fact must support the judgment, and if not, the judgment must be reversed.” (Ponting v. Isaman, 7 Ida. 581, 65 Pac. 434.) . “There is not a substantial conflict in the evidence such as to bring it within the rule that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the finding of the court will not be disturbed.” (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Ida. 190, 85 Pac. 490.) “In equity cases the appellate court will examine the evidence with a view to sustain the trial court in its findings and judgment, but will reverse the judgment if the evidence, is insufficient to sustain it.” {Small v. Harrington, 10 Ida. 499, 79 Pac. 461.1 "Where there is substantial conflict in the evidence on which any finding of fact is based, such finding will not be disturbed on appeal. (Weeter Lumber Co. v. Fales, 20 Ida. 255, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 403, 118 Pac. 289; Blackfoot State Bank v. Crisler, 20 Ida. 379, 118 Pac. 775; Friedrich v. Donahue, 20 Ida. 92, 116 Pac. 1029; Thomason v. Lane-Potter Lumber Co., 20 Ida. 771, 119 Pac. 875; Coe v. McGran, 23 Ida. 582, 131 Pac. 1110; Griffith v. Griffith (Wash.), 133 Pae. 443.)

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 the appellant to obtain a divorce from the defendant. The action was tried by the court and findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment entered in favor of the defendant. The appeal is from the judgment.

The only error assigned is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. Upon a careful examination of the evidence we find there is a substantial conflict upon all of the material issues made by the pleadings. That being true, under the well-established rule of this court, the findings and judgment must be affirmed. (Friedrich v. Donahue, 20 Ida. 92 , 116 Pac. 1029 ; Weeter Lumber Co. v. Fales, 20 Ida. 255 , Ann. Cas. 1913A, 403, 118 Pac. 289 ; Blackfoot State Bank v. Crisler, 20 Ida. 379 , 118 Pac. 775 ; Thomason v. Lane-Potter Lumber Co., 20 Ida. 771 , 119 Pac. 875 ; Coe v. McGran, 23 Ida. 582 , 131 Pac. 1110 ; Griffith v. Griffith (Wash.), 133 Pac. 443 .)

The judgment must therefore be affirmed and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the appellant.

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.

1914: 11915: 11916: 11917: 11922: 11925: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davenport v. Burke167 P. 481 (Idaho 1917)
  2. Bower v. Moorman147 P. 496 (Idaho 1915)
  3. Montgomery v. Gray144 P. 646 (Idaho 1914)
  4. Lus v. Pecararo238 P. 1021 (Idaho 1925)
  5. Rogers v. Rogers208 P. 234 (Idaho 1922)
  6. Hayton v. Clemans165 P. 994 (Idaho 1916)

Most recent

  1. Lus v. Pecararo238 P. 1021 (Idaho 1925)
  2. Rogers v. Rogers208 P. 234 (Idaho 1922)
  3. Davenport v. Burke167 P. 481 (Idaho 1917)
  4. Hayton v. Clemans165 P. 994 (Idaho 1916)
  5. Bower v. Moorman147 P. 496 (Idaho 1915)
  6. Montgomery v. Gray144 P. 646 (Idaho 1914)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Weeter Lumber Co. v. Fales, 118 P. 289 (Idaho 1911) 16
Blackfoot State Bank v. Crisler, 118 P. 775 (Idaho 1911) 4
Thomason v. Lane-Potter Lumber Co., 119 P. 875 (Idaho 1911) 3
Coe v. McGran, 131 P. 1110 (Idaho 1913) 3
Friedrich v. Donahue, 116 P. 1029 (Idaho 1911) 2
Griffith v. Griffith, 133 P. 443 (Wash. 1913) 7

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