Chapman v. A. H. Averill Machinery Co.
W. E. CHAPMAN v. THE A. H. AVERILL MACHINERY CO.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
SULLIVAN, C. J.
— This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. A motion to dismiss the appeal has been made on the ground that the stenographer’s notes of the evidence were not prepared, served, settled and certified as required by law, or at all.
On an examination of the transcript, we find that the reporter’s notes were not settled by the trial court or judge, and on the authority of Grisinger v. Hubbard, 21 Ida. 469 , Ann Cas. 1913E, 87, 122 Pac. 853 ; and Strand v. Crooked *214 River M. & M. Co., 23 Ida. 577 , 131 Pac. 5 , where it was held that in order to review the matter contained in the ‘stenographer’s transcript such transcript must be settled by the judge, the motion must be sustained and the appeal dismissed. Costs in favor of the respondent.
Budge and Morgan, JJ., 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 →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.