TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kingsbury v. Lee

JOHN N. KINGSBURY v. FRANK LEE

Kingsbury v. Lee, 211 P. 552 (Idaho 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 23, 1922
Judges
Budge, Dunn, Lee, McCarthy
Citations
211 P. 55236 Idaho 4471922 Ida. LEXIS 193

Opinion of the Court — Budge

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

BUDGE', J.

The record in this case discloses the fact that the notice of appeal is dated February 17, 1921, that on the same day the attorney for appellant mailed to the attorney for respondents a copy of such notice of appeal, and the certificate of the clerk shows that a good and sufficient undertaking was filed on the 1st day of March, 1921. However, such undertaking was not filed within the time provided by C. S., sec. 7153: “ .... but the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose unless within five days after service of the notice of appeal an undertaking be filed, or a deposit of money be made with the clerk, as hereinafter provided, or the undertaking be waived by the adverse party in writing.”

*448 The record fails to disclose any waiver of the undertaking by the respondents, and whether the undertaking was a written one or a deposit of money, it was not filed with the clerk within five days after the service of the notice of appeal. The filing of the undertaking, or a waiver thereof by the adverse parties in writing, within the time prescribed by C. S., sec. 7153, supra, is a jurisdictional requirement and must be complied with or the appeal is ineffectual for any purpose. This court has laid down this rule on many occasions: Woodmansee & Webster Co. v. Woodmansee, 31 Ida. 747 , 176 Pac. 148 ; Cole v. Fox, 13 Ida. 123 , 88 Pac. 561 ; Haas v. Teters, 17 Ida. 550 , 106 Pac. 305 ; Hattabaugh v. Vollmer, 5 Ida. 23 , 46 Pac. 831 ; Brown v. Hanley, 3 Ida. 219 , 28 Pac. 425 .

Upon that authority the appeal should be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Costs are awarded to respondents.

McCarthy, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11924: 11929: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kimzey v. Highland Livestock & Land Co.214 P. 750 (Idaho 1923)
  2. Caldwell v. Evans275 P. 779 (Idaho 1929)
  3. Myers v. Harvey229 P. 1112 (Idaho 1924)

Most recent

  1. Caldwell v. Evans275 P. 779 (Idaho 1929)
  2. Myers v. Harvey229 P. 1112 (Idaho 1924)
  3. Kimzey v. Highland Livestock & Land Co.214 P. 750 (Idaho 1923)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Hattabaugh v. Vollmer, 46 P. 831 (Idaho 1896) 10
Brown v. Hanley, 28 P. 425 (Idaho 1891) 8
Woodmansee & Webster Co. v. Woodmansee, 176 P. 148 (Idaho 1918) 8
Cole v. Fox, 88 P. 561 (Idaho 1907) 7
Haas v. Teters, 106 P. 305 (Idaho 1910) 4

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