Muncey v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, Connecticut

Decision Date17 July 1926
Citation42 Idaho 782,247 P. 785
PartiesROBERT H. MUNCEY and ANGELINE MUNCEY, His Wife, Appellants, v. THE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, of New Haven, Connecticut, a Corporation, Respondent
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

APPEAL AND ERROR-SUFFICIENCY OF UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL-ONE UNDERTAKING FOR TWO APPEALS-STATUTORY NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY-OMISSION FROM RECORD ON APPEAL OF BILL OF EXCEPTIONS OR CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL JUDGE.

1. Under C. S., secs. 7154 and 7236, undertaking on appeals from judgment and from order taxing costs, taken by giving one notice of appeal, reciting that bond was given as required by C. S., sec. 7154, held sufficient as bond on appeal from judgment.

2. Under C. S., sec. 7164, and supreme court rule 24, appeal from order taxing costs will be dismissed where record does not contain bill of exceptions or certificate showing what papers were submitted to or considered by judge who passed on motion.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District for Kootenai County. Hon. Charles L. Heitman, Judge.

Motion to dismiss appeal from judgment. Motion denied. Motion to dismiss appeal from order taxing costs. Appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. No costs allowed.

Lynn W Culp, for Appellants.

Bert A Reed and Ezra R. Whitla, for Respondent.

Counsel file no briefs.

TAYLOR J. William A. Lee, C. J., and Wm. E. Lee and Givens, JJ., concur.

OPINION

TAYLOR, J.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeals herein from a judgment and from an order taxing costs.

As to the judgment, the motion is made upon the ground that "no undertaking has been given upon the appeal from the judgment." The judgment was rendered March 28, 1925, and the order taxing costs was entered June 16, 1925. The appeals were taken by giving one notice of appeal, reciting in separate paragraphs an appeal from the judgment and from the order taxing costs. The undertaking recites:

"Whereas, the plaintiffs . . . . are about to appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, from that certain judgment . . . . , and

"Whereas, the said plaintiffs intend to appeal to said Supreme Court from the order of said court . . . . as to that part of said order allowing certain items named in the memorandum of costs and disbursements, and by the plaintiffs moved to be stricken and modified, and taxing costs against the plaintiffs at $ 147.05;

"Now, Therefore, the said plaintiffs being required to furnish and file an undertaking on appeal, in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00) as required by Section 7154 of the Idaho Compiled Statutes, 1919, we, the undersigned sureties, do hereby obligate ourselves jointly and severally to the defendant, The Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Connecticut, a corporation, under said statutory obligation, in the amount of Three Hundred Dollars ($ 300.00); . . . . "

C. S sec. 7154, provides "that when more than one appeal in the same action, whether from the judgment and an appealable order or orders, or from two or more appealable orders is taken at the same time, but one such undertaking or deposit for damages and costs need be filed or made." This section further provides that if any undertaking be insufficient or defective, such insufficiency or defect is deemed waived unless the respondent, within twenty days after the filing of such undertaking, "shall file and serve . . . . a notice, in writing, pointing out specifically the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • In re Estate of O'Brien
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1927
    ... ... John, 33 Idaho 717, 197 P. 827; Muncey v. Security ... Ins. Co., 42 Idaho 782, 247 P. 785; ... ...
  • Eichner v. Meyer
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1936
    ... ... School District, 36 Idaho 133, 209 ... P. 726; Muncey v. Security Insurance Co., 42 Idaho ... 782, 247 P. 785; ... ...
  • Land Development Corp. v. Cannaday, 7991
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1953
    ...on appeal or on a dismissal, hence, the motion to dismiss is denied. Bothwell v. Keefer, 52 Idaho 737, 20 P.2d 199; Muncey v. Security Ins. Co., 42 Idaho 782, 247 P. 785; Bain v. Olsen, 36 Idaho 130, 209 P. Respondent urges that plaintiff failed to introduce the Articles of Incorporation al......
  • Brooks v. Lewiston Business College
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1929
    ... ... School Dist. No ... 61, 36 Idaho 133, 209 P. 726; Muncey v. Security Ins ... Co., 42 Idaho 782, 247 P. 785; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT