Robert N. Dunn

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for knowingly making a false report on the condition of the Declo State Bank to the state commissioner pursuant to a required call for statements. The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds including improper denial of a motion to quash the information, an invalid special plea of former acquittal based on a grand jury's failure to indict, and errors in jury instructions regarding the need for specific intent to deceive, reasonable doubt, and bank accounting details. The court rejected all assignments of error, holding that procedural requirements for the motion and plea were not met, that precedent established no specific deceptive intent was required for the offense, that the jury instructions were sufficient and correct, and that factual questions like overdrafts were properly for the jury, thereby upholding the judgment and sentence.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, a stockholder sued the corporation to recover funds she paid to redeem its mining property from an execution sale, plus related expenses and attorneys' fees. The trial court ruled she could recover only $50 in attorneys' fees and directed return of the redemption money. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a stockholder may not redeem corporate property without first demanding that the corporation act to preserve its assets or showing such a demand would be useless, findings supported by the evidence here. Because the stockholder lacked authority to redeem, she had no basis to recover expenses or fees. The court affirmed the judgment as modified by striking the fee award and awarded costs to the corporation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Mathers v. Mathers, a wife who received community property but no alimony in a final divorce decree sought to modify the judgment for permanent alimony after the husband’s bankruptcy left her with nothing; the district court denied modification, prompting appeals over allowances for suit money, temporary alimony, and attorney’s fees. The Idaho Supreme Court denied the wife’s application for those allowances during the appeals. The court reasoned that the sole statutory authority, C.S. sec. 4642, permits such awards only while a divorce action is pending, but here the decree had become final before modification proceedings began and the parties were no longer married.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a suit by a doctor against the Al. G. Barnes Circus company for payment of medical services rendered to an injured employee and for assigned hospital bills. The company specially appeared to challenge service of summons and attachment but later took actions including filing an answer, stipulating to depositions, and appealing the probate court judgment to the district court on both law and fact. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that those actions amounted to a general appearance under Idaho statutes, which waived any defects in service and submitted the company to the court's jurisdiction; it also upheld the trial court's allowance of an amendment correcting the defendant's name in the complaint.

procedure

The case concerned a dispute over whether a party was entitled to statutory notice under C. S. sec. 6577 after her attorney ceased to act, in a civil proceeding where the opposing side obtained an ex parte judgment following the case being set for trial. The majority held that the statute did not apply because the party had personal knowledge of the attorney's withdrawal and the trial setting, so no formal notice was required. The dissent argues that this construction directly conflicts with the plain language of the statute, which mandates notice whenever an attorney dies, is removed, suspended, or ceases to act, without any exception for personal knowledge. The core reasoning is that the statute is unambiguous and must be applied as written to give it effect, rather than judicially adding exceptions that would render it meaningless, consistent with principles of statutory construction that prioritize the legislature's expressed intent.

procedure

This case concerned a dispute over Republican Party nomination for prosecuting attorney in Gooding County, Idaho, after Democrat M. F. Ryan received the Democratic nomination and also the highest number of write-in votes on the Republican primary ballot, leading the canvassing board to declare him the nominee for both parties. Plaintiff D. H. Sutphen, nominated by the Republican County Central Committee to fill an alleged vacancy, sued to compel the county auditor to file his certificate of nomination, arguing that Idaho's primary law created a closed primary that barred a non-member from becoming a party's nominee. The court held that Ryan's nomination did not create a vacancy on the Republican ticket and denied the writ of mandate. It reasoned that while the legislature intended a closed primary to give bona fide party members control over party affairs, the statutes contained no explicit prohibition against party voters nominating a non-member, and provisions applicable to primaries from general election law allow voters to support any candidate. The court distinguished contrary rulings from Nebraska and Ohio based on differences in statutory language and facts.

elections

This case is an action to foreclose a mortgage securing a $650 note executed by appellants R.A. Birch and Olive V. Birch in favor of Thomas Sneddon, which passed to respondent Christina Sneddon after Sneddon's estate was probated. The trial court found for the respondent and entered a foreclosure judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the appellants' denial on information and belief of the probate decree was legally insufficient because it concerned accessible public records, that delivery of the note and mortgage occurred even if not personally by Mrs. Birch, and that the notary's certificate and testimony established her acknowledgment of the mortgage, which could only be overcome by clear and convincing proof. The mortgage was treated as community property requiring the wife's acknowledgment, but the sole issue was whether it had occurred.

property

This case involves a lawsuit to collect on a $400 promissory note executed by A. Rivas Company, with the plaintiff seeking to hold Jose Fernandez liable as a partner in the business. The defendants included the alleged partners, and the note was transferred to the plaintiff for collection purposes. The trial court, after a jury trial, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that Fernandez was a partner and the note was validly executed for the partnership. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on the partnership's existence and the note's execution, and that the jury instructions were proper.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for being a persistent violator of the state's prohibition law, resulting in a sentence of one to two years in the Idaho Penitentiary. The court affirmed the judgment on appeal, finding that the challenge to the information via demurrer was not properly presented because it was not included in a bill of exceptions as required by statute. Additionally, the evidence was deemed sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice, satisfying the requirements of the relevant corroboration statute, thus upholding the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case State Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Dunbar concerned a dispute over a candidate's rights regarding nomination acceptance and the placement of the candidate's name on election ballots. The court sustained the demurrer, granted the motion, and dismissed the action. The opinion concurs in the dismissal but states that statutes granting an express right to decline a nomination also imply a right for the candidate to direct the auditor on which ticket the name should appear. This implied right may be exercised before ballots are printed, and if the candidate takes neither action, the auditor must omit the name from all tickets.

elections

The case involved a dispute over 1,381 sheep that Continental National Bank had attached in Bannock County as security for three promissory notes totaling $20,000 owed by defendant Naylor. Intervenor Loren C. Woolley claimed ownership, alleging that the sheep had been delivered to Naylor under a 1908 lease contract from Woolley and his father and that Naylor had relinquished all interest in the sheep back to Woolley on December 14, 1920, shortly before the attachment. The trial court ruled for the bank, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lease contract was valid, that title had passed to Woolley before the levy, and that the bank—as a general creditor without a prior lien—could not prevail under C.S. sec. 1955. The court directed entry of judgment awarding possession to Woolley or, if return was impossible, a determination of value with interest from the date of attachment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs suing a defendant for one year's unpaid rent under a three-year lease for approximately 90 acres of land at an annual rate of $135. The complaint alleged the lease terms and the defendant's occupation of the land for the full term, with payment made for only two years. The defendant's answer admitted the lease and the facts of occupancy and partial payment but denied owing the final year's rent and attempted to raise affirmative defenses that were not properly pleaded. The trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs at the close of the defendant's case and entered judgment accordingly. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the admissions in the answer established the indebtedness as a matter of law and left no material issue for trial.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over water rights allocation between Albrethsen and Wood River Land Co., specifically regarding the proper calculation of water allowed to the respondent. The majority held that seepage and evaporation should be added to the amount of water permitted. A concurring judge agrees with including those factors in the calculation but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment in full.

propertyenvironment