Charles P. McCarthy

This case was an appeal from a first-degree murder conviction after appellant Breyer shot Oscar Taylor three times, claiming self-defense, insanity, and provocation based on his belief that Taylor had improper designs on his wife. The jury rejected these defenses, finding the killing deliberate and premeditated. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that although the trial judge improperly conducted an independent factual investigation when denying a change of venue, the affidavits did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to require reversal, and other alleged errors regarding prosecutorial statements, admission of spousal res gestae statements, and certain evidence were either not properly preserved, not erroneous, or not prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a claim by Myra Fisk for workers' compensation benefits following the death of her husband Arthur N. Fisk while hauling ties for the Bonner Tie Company. The Industrial Accident Board initially denied the claim, but the district court reversed and ordered compensation, leading to this appeal. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Fisk qualified as an employee of the company under the Workmen's Compensation Act because the company was the virtual proprietor of the business, and the hauling work was integral to its operations despite being performed through independent contractors. The court reasoned that the statute extends liability to such proprietors and that common-law independent contractor rules do not apply in this context.

labor & employment

This case involved a public administrator suing to cancel a warranty deed from an adjudicated incompetent (Henry Wing) to the defendant and a related mortgage back to Wing, along with damages for clouding title on real property that was already under contract for sale to third parties. The trial court canceled both instruments and awarded $250 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the cancellation, holding that the defendant fraudulently induced the deed from the incompetent with knowledge of the prior sale and escrow, and that an administrator is the proper party to quiet title or remove clouds on estate property; however, it reversed the damages award for lack of sufficient pleading or evidence regarding necessity and reasonableness. The court also rejected challenges to the complaint, the denial of a jury trial (as this was an equitable action), and other procedural claims.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned the proper valuation and taxation of a bank's capital stock in Latah County for 1921, after the county board of equalization adjusted the assessment and the district court further modified it based on market evidence. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the matter, holding that the statutory formula under C.S. § 3298 governs valuation by using paid-up capital plus surplus and undivided profits less expenses and taxes paid, rather than sales prices or other market data. The court further held that the 1919 statutes permit appeals from board of equalization decisions and require deduction of amounts invested in other assessed property before determining any taxable stock value. It directed the lower court to apply the statutory method to the bank's reported figures and the evidence of assessed investments.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a suit on a promissory note secured by a recorded chattel mortgage on personal property in Kootenai County, Idaho, along with a claim that certain defendants wrongfully removed and converted some of the mortgaged chattels. The plaintiff sought foreclosure of the remaining property in Kootenai County and recovery from the converters. The defendants, who resided in Lewis County, moved for a change of venue under the general statute requiring actions to be tried in the county of their residence. The court held that the specific statute governing foreclosure of chattel mortgages, which requires the action to be brought in the county where the property is situated, controls over the general venue rule, and that this rule extends to connected claims arising from the mortgage such as conversion. The order denying the change of venue was therefore affirmed.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a writ of review challenging district court orders in a pending divorce action between plaintiff Hay and defendant Josephine Hay, including an order directing plaintiff to pay $1,500 in attorney fees and suit money (with a provision allowing payment from funds previously deposited to defendant's credit in a bank), a restraining order on property, temporary child custody arrangements, and a subsequent contempt judgment against plaintiff for failing to comply with the payment order. The court granted the writ in part and annulled the suit money order and contempt judgment, while quashing the writ as to the restraining and custody orders. The core reasoning was that the suit money order exceeded the court's jurisdiction by attempting to redirect funds that undisputedly belonged to the defendant (with plaintiff retaining no control), making compliance impossible and rendering the contempt finding invalid as it rested on that order; the other orders were not subject to review in this proceeding.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Bowker, the court addressed a criminal appeal. One justice concurred in the result solely on the basis of error in the jury instructions as set forth in a separate opinion. A second justice took no part in the hearing or decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns a dispute over enforcement of a promissory note that included a provision authorizing the sale of collateral, with respondents raising defenses related to that provision. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority except regarding respondent Merrill, concluding that he is estopped from challenging the collateral-sale term because he signed the note in his capacity as bank president, thereby demonstrating knowledge of and consent to its terms. Knowledge acquired in his official role cannot be disclaimed in his individual capacity. As to the remaining respondents, no estoppel applies because the record does not show they approved or were even aware of the collateral provision.

business & regulatory

In Blackaby v. Dunning, the appellant obtained a default judgment against debtor Arthur Dunning and sought to collect via garnishment on funds owed by the Portland Cattle Loan Co. for purchased hay, but the company’s answer admitted partial liability while asserting a third-party mortgage claim by Horace Dunning. The district court entered judgment against the garnishee without notice or an unconditional admission of liability, then later vacated it as void. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judgment failed to meet statutory requirements under C.S. §§ 6793 and 6794 for an unqualified admission of debt and service of due notice on the garnishee, rendering it jurisdictionally defective; the court also upheld joining the third-party claimant to resolve the competing interests. The core reasoning centered on due-process prerequisites for garnishment judgments and the impropriety of adjudicating the mortgagee’s claim on conflicting affidavits alone.

procedure

This case involves an appeal by Pederson from a conviction in Canyon County district court for obtaining money under false pretenses. After the appeal was filed and the transcript submitted, Pederson's attorneys withdrew, and despite an extension to file a brief, none was submitted, and Pederson did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The court, following Rule 48, could have affirmed the judgment without review but examined the record for fundamental error anyway. Finding no such error, the court affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Martens v. Ehle, respondents filed an action in district court to quiet title to certain real estate against appellant and other defendants. After trial, the district court entered judgment quieting title in respondents, and appellant appealed. Appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file briefs or appear at oral argument nearly two and a half years later; the court denied appellant's motion to submit a brief or assignment of errors out of time and affirmed the judgment under Rule 48 after examining the record and finding the assignments without merit.

propertyprocedure

In Carter v. Carter, the appellant wife sued for divorce on grounds of cruelty, while the respondent husband cross-complained alleging adultery and sought custody of the four minor children along with all community property. The trial court found the wife guilty of adultery, granted the husband a divorce and custody of the children, awarded him the entire community property valued at $7,000, but required him to pay the wife $500 plus suit money and attorney fees. On appeal, the wife challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adultery finding and claimed an abuse of discretion in the property division. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence from a related criminal proceeding and additional testimony sustained the trial court's findings and that the division of property complied with the statute granting the court discretion in such matters.

family lawproperty

This case was an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, based on liquids found during a search of the defendant's home that were later analyzed as containing alcohol. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that evidence of the chemical analysis was properly admitted because competent testimony showed no material change in the liquids' condition or alcoholic content during the period before testing. The court further held that the evidence as a whole was sufficient to sustain the judgment despite some conflicting testimony from the defendant, and that other claimed errors lacked merit.

criminal law

The case involved a lawsuit by First National Bank against Pond to collect on a promissory note that had been transferred to the bank by Hibbard Bros., Inc. Pond alleged fraud in the note's creation by Hibbard Bros., but the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the bank. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the bank met its burden to show it was a holder in due course through uncontradicted testimony from its officers that they had no knowledge of the fraud, and that evidence of the corporation's poor reputation was insufficient to create a jury question on the bank's good faith. The court also found that evidence of the corporation's charter forfeiture was irrelevant because the transfer occurred before the forfeiture date.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over possession of half the 1922 wheat crop grown on 320 acres in Madison County, Idaho. Appellant, a corporation formed by the Woodmansee heirs, claimed ownership of the land and leased it to tenant Covington, entitling it to half the crop. Intervenor First National Bank claimed ownership via a sheriff's deed and had also leased the land to Covington on similar terms. The trial court found that appellant held only an unrecorded mortgage on the land, which had never been foreclosed, and that the bank held valid title and lease rights. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the transaction was a mortgage from inception based on undisputed evidence of debt security, so appellant had no ownership or possessory rights to the land or crop, while the bank's title and lease entitled it to the disputed half.

property

In Myers v. Harvey, the respondent moved to dismiss an appeal on grounds that the notice of appeal was not filed within 90 days of judgment entry and the undertaking on appeal was not filed within five days after service of the notice. The court determined the notice was timely filed because the 90th day fell on a Sunday, a holiday excluded by statute, permitting filing the next business day. However, the undertaking was filed more than five days after service of the notice with no waiver, rendering the filing untimely and the appeal ineffectual for lack of jurisdiction, so the motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

procedure

This case involves a dispute over a promissory note given by the Campbells to MacMullin as part of a land purchase agreement, where the note was delivered conditionally on MacMullin providing a clear title contract and abstract the next day. MacMullin instead mortgaged the land before completing the deal, leading the Campbells to cancel the transaction; the First National Bank then acquired the note from MacMullin with knowledge of these facts. The trial court directed a verdict for the bank, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence of conditional delivery raised a jury question and that the bank, having taken the note with notice of the defect, was not a holder in due course under the relevant statute (C.S. § 5883). The court reasoned that the burden was on the bank to prove it took without notice, which it failed to do, and that subsequent dealings between the Campbells and MacMullin did not estop the defense against the bank. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case was an original mandamus proceeding in which a candidate nominated for U.S. Representative by both the Democratic and Progressive parties sought to compel a county auditor to print his name twice on the official ballot, once under each party designation. The court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the action, holding that C.S. sec. 573 expressly prohibits any candidate's name from appearing more than once on the ballot. The opinion reviewed the legislative history of related election statutes, including provisions for party designations and declinations of nominations, and concluded that the single-name rule is a valid exercise of legislative authority to regulate elections and preserve party integrity without violating constitutional rights of candidates, parties, or voters.

elections

The case concerned multiple creditors of the insolvent Idaho Lumber Company, some of whom had levied attachments on its property while National City Bank and another had not. After a receiver was appointed, the district court allowed only the attaching creditors to share pro rata in the insufficient assets and denied the non-attaching creditors the same right. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, ruling that under C.S. sec. 6781 a creditor who commences and prosecutes an action to final judgment within sixty days may prorate regardless of whether a receiver was later appointed. The court reasoned that a receivership is merely an ancillary equitable proceeding that preserves property for all parties without altering or waiving statutory rights to proration or attachment liens.

procedureproperty

In State v. Arnold, the defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to death after the trial court held a hearing to determine the degree of the crime and appropriate penalty. He then moved to vacate the judgment and withdraw his plea, claiming the information was defective, the court improperly took evidence on its own motion, the evidence did not support the death penalty, and his plea resulted from inadequate legal advice. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and denial of the motion, holding that the information sufficiently alleged the offense, the court had authority to investigate and determine the degree under statute, the evidence supported the sentence, and the defendant was not misled about the possible consequences of his plea. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal of the plea.

criminal lawprocedure