Jensen v. Bumgarner

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COWEN, District Judge.
• Citation: Jensen v. Bumgarner, 156 P. 114, 28 Idaho 706 (Idaho 1916)
• Decision Date: 13 March 1916
• Parties: L. JENSEN, Respondent, v. GEORGE E. BUMGARNER and G. C. BAKER, Appellants

156 P. 114

28 Idaho 706

L. JENSEN, Respondent, v. GEORGE E. BUMGARNER and G. C. BAKER, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 13, 1916

APPEAL-CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY-INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.

1. It is the settled law of this state that an appellate court will not disturb the findings or judgment of the trial court where there is a substantial conflict of the evidence. This rule applies with equal force in actions at law and suits in equity, where a trial is had on oral evidence.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

J. F Colvin and J. C. Johnston, for Appellants.

G. W Lamson, for Respondent.

Counsel cite no authorities on point decided.

COWEN, District Judge. Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

COWEN, District Judge.

This action was instituted by the respondent to recover from the appellants $ 30.90 upon a contract alleged to have been entered into by the respondent and the agents of the appellants for work and labor performed and material furnished in painting and tinting certain rooms in a building owned by the appellants, situated in the city of Nampa, Canyon county, and for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. Judgment was awarded the respondent for the amount prayed for in respondent's complaint, together with court costs and attorney's fees, amounting in all to $ 133.50. This appeal is from the judgment.

This case is now before this court for the second time. The opinion in the former appeal will be found in 25 Idaho 355, 137 P. 529, in which will appear a somewhat more detailed statement of the proceedings. The first appeal was from the judgment and from an order denying defendants' motion for a new trial. The case was reversed and remanded on the ground that the trial court had failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon its return to the district court, the parties to the action entered into a stipulation, to the effect that the trial judge who heard the evidence in the original trial might consider the matter anew upon the transcript of the evidence which had been used on the first appeal. The judge thereupon made his findings and conclusions, and entered judgment for the plaintiff.

Some ten assignments of error are made upon the appeal, but they are all based upon the one contention, that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings and judgment. The court found, among other things, "That on or about the first day of April, 1912, the defendants authorized P. M. Bloom and ...