Ellis v. Bingham County
Decision Date | 08 February 1900 |
Parties | ELLIS v. BINGHAM COUNTY |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
CLAIMS AGAINST A COUNTY-ALLOWANCE IN PART-APPEAL FROM BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS.-Claimants, whose claims against the county are allowed in part, must accept or reject the action of the board of commissioners as a whole, and cannot appeal from a portion of the action of the board. Affirming Eakins v. Nez Perces County, 4 Idaho 131, 36 P. 702, and Clyne v. Bingham County, ante, p. 75, 60 P. 76.
SAME-CLAIM FOR SERVICES, WHAT TO CONTAIN.-An item in a constable's claim or account against a county, for services in serving process in a criminal case, must specify the court in which the action is pending, name the offense, the party served and place of service, so that the correctness of the item shall prima facie appear from the claim itself.
STATUTE CONSTRUED.-Act of March 13, 1891, does not amend sections 2126 and 2136 of the Revised Statutes in so far as said sections relate to constables' fees and mileage.
CONSTABLES' FEES AND MILEAGE.-Constables are entitled to mileage at the rate of twenty cents per mile for each mile necessarily traveled in going only, from place where the court is held to serve process.
ATTORNEYS-STIPULATION.-Briefs that are signed and filed by persons claiming to be attorneys, but who are not licensed to practice in the appellate court, will be stricken from the files on order of the court.
BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS.-Boards of commissioners are not a law unto themselves, but must be guided by and obey the provisions of statutes relating to the allowance of claims against a county.
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL.-When there is no judgment or order from which an appeal will lie shown by the transcript, the appellate court should, on its own motion, dismiss the appeal. Affirming Potter v. Talkington, 5 Idaho 317, 49 P. 14, and Clyne v Bingham County, ante, p. 75, 60 P. 76.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County.
Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded to neither party.
N, H Clark, for Appellant, cites no authorities on the points decided.
No attorney for Respondent.
The respondent, W. G. Ellis, is a constable in Idaho Falls precinct, in Bingham county, and, as such constable, presented nine bills or claims against said county to the board of commissioners for allowance, aggregating $ 648.95. The commissioners allowed a portion of each bill or claim, aggregating in all the sum of $ 449.50, and disallowed a portion of each bill, the amounts disallowed amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $ 199.49. The respondent appealed to the district court from the action of the board in disallowing said portions of his claims, and from the action of the district court the county appeals to this court.
The record before us, touching the transcript on appeal to the district court, and from the district court to this court, is substantially in the same condition as the transcript in the case of Clyne v. Bingham Co. (, )ante, p. 75, 60 P. 76, and what is said in the opinion in that case as to the transcript applies here. The order or orders of the board of commissioners is not in the record before us. The notice of appeal of respondent from the order of the board to the district court, after being directed to the members of the board, clerk of the board, and county attorney is as follows: From this notice and the transcript, it appears that the respondent constable appealed from the action of the board in disallowing parts of his claims, and that he must have accepted a warrant or warrants for those parts allowed. Acceptance of a warrant for part of a claim allowed by the board of commissioners against the county bars the claimant from appealing from the order, or from asserting a claim to that part of the claim disallowed. (See Rev. Stats., sec. 1775, and Clyne v. Bingham Co., cited, supra.
We find in the record before us two stipulations, in words and figures as follows:
These stipulations attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the court--tend to confine its duties to one question of law--i. e., the mileage to which a constable is entitled in criminal cases. What we said in Clyne v. Bingham Co., supra, in regard to such stipulations and the duties of the courts applies to these stipulations.
Folios 62 to 64 of the transcript are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boise Valley Traction Co. v. Ada County
...sec. 3508; Arbios v. San Bernardino Co., 110 Cal. 553, 42 P. 1080; Marron v. San Diego Co., 8 Cal.App. 244, 96 P. 814; Ellis v. Bingham County, 7 Idaho 86, 60 P. 79.) must be started within six months after rejection, or partial rejection of claim, by the board of county commissioners. (C. ......
-
Corker v. Pence
... ... his office required by law ... 4 ... County officers, for all other willful or corrupt misconduct ... in office, other than that mentioned in ... 1111; ... Stewart v. Bole, 61 Neb. 193, 85 N.W. 33; Clyne ... v. Bingham Co., 7 Idaho 75, 60 P. 76; Ellis v ... Bingham County, 7 Idaho 86, 60 P. 79.) County officers ... ...
-
Freeling v. Tucker, 5384
... ... from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for ... Bannock County. Hon. Jay L. Downing, Judge ... Action ... to recover for professional services ... license tax in this state, cannot recover for the services ... set out in his complaint. (Ellis v. Bingham County, ... 7 Idaho 86 (93) 60 P. 79; Anderson v. Coolin, 27 ... Idaho 334, 149 P ... ...
-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
... ... ERROR ... to the District Court, Platte County; HON. WILLIAM C ... MENTZER, Judge ... Heard ... on motion to dismiss. No briefs ... reversed. See also Kaplan v. Berman, 37 Misc. 502, ... 75 N.Y.S. 1002. In Ellis v. Bingham County, 7 Idaho ... 86, 60 P. 79, it is said: "A brief has been filed on ... behalf of ... ...