Bain v. Olsen

• Decision Date: 27 May 1924
• Citation: 226 P. 668,39 Idaho 170
• Parties: PETER BAIN, Appellant, v. CHRIS O. OLSEN and HATTIE OLSEN, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

226 P. 668

39 Idaho 170

PETER BAIN, Appellant, v. CHRIS O. OLSEN and HATTIE OLSEN, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 27, 1924

APPEAL AND ERROR-ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS-SUFFICIENCY OF SPECIFICATIONS-REVIEW-EXAMINATION OF ALLEGED ERRORS.

1. An appellate court will not review an assignment which does not point out the particulars in which the alleged error consists.

2. An appellate court must content itself with examining alleged errors specifically pointed out; it cannot wade through the record and search the law relating to the subject involved to determine if error was committed by the trial court.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Bingham County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.

Action to foreclose mortgage on real property. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents.

W. A Beakley, for Appellant.

W. P Hanson and E. O. Thompson, for Respondents.

Counsel cite no authorities on points decided.

WM. E LEE, J. McCarthy, C. J., and Budge and William A. Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WM. E. LEE, J.

--This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court for respondents in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property. Appellant alleged the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage to one John MacMullin; that MacMullin, for a valuable consideration, in due course of business, sold and assigned the note and mortgage to him, before maturity; that he is the lawful owner and holder thereof; and that the whole sum of principal and interest is due and unpaid. Respondents admitted the execution of the note and mortgage, but denied that, in due course of business, or otherwise, they delivered the instruments to MacMullin for the purpose of transferring title therein, and respondents alleged that the instruments were delivered to MacMullin for the purpose of enabling him to complete a farm loan, theretofore applied for. It is further alleged that MacMullin was president of the Idaho Cattle Loan Company, and held himself and the company out as being able to negotiate and effect farm loans; and that, at the time of the negotiations for the loan and the delivery of the note and mortgage, appellant was in the employ of the company, or MacMullin, and knew why the note and mortgage were executed and delivered, and knew that they were not delivered for the purpose of passing title to MacMullin, but solely for the purpose of enabling MacMullin, or the company, to complete the desired loan. It is also alleged that the assignment of the mortgage was made to appellant without any consideration, and with intent to defraud respondents; that appellant was not a holder in good faith; that the loan was never made and nothing was ever paid respondents, and that the consideration for which the note and mortgage were originally delivered has entirely failed; that the transfer to appellant was not made in good faith; that appellant, at the time of the transfer to him, knew that it was for the purpose of defrauding respondents; and that respondents have been defrauded thereby. Appellant submitted evidence tending to support the allegations of his complaint, and respondents submitted evidence tending to sustain their contentions.

The court found, among other things, that the note and mortgage were delivered to the original payee for the specific purpose of enabling him to complete a farm loan, and not for the purpose of otherwise transferring the said instruments; that appellant was not a holder in due course; that no consideration passed from appellant to the original payee that the note and mortgage were negotiated for the purpose and with the intention of defrauding respondents; and that appellant was an employee of the original payee and knew the objects and purposes for which the note and mortgage were executed, and knew that the original payee had given no consideration whatever for the note and mortgage. Among other things, the court concluded that appellant had full knowledge of the transaction by which the note and mortgage were...