Porter v. Steele

• Decision Date: 15 December 1900
• Citation: 7 Idaho 414,63 P. 187
• Parties: PORTER v. STEELE, JUDGE
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

63 P. 187

7 Idaho 414

PORTER v. STEELE, JUDGE

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 15, 1900

WRIT OF REVIEW-HEARING BY COURT.-Where the writ of review is asked upon the ground that the judge of the district court had exceeded his jurisdiction in hearing and determining the cause at chambers and the return to the writ, which return contains a copy of the court record, shows that the cause was heard and determined by the court at a regular term thereof the writ will be discharged.

(Syllabus by the court.)

Original proceeding for writ of review.

Writ dismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with costs to defendant.

McFarland & McFarland, for Plaintiff, file no brief.

Eugene O'Neill, for Defendant, cites no authorities upon the point decided by the court.

HUSTON C. J. Quarles and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

HUSTON, C. J.

This is an application for a writ of review. On the fourteenth day of October, 1899, the petitioner was granted by the district court of Nez Perces county, Idaho a decree of divorce from her then husband, L. A. Porter, in which decree it was, among other things, decreed "that the custody of the minor children, Ray Porter, Neeta Porter, and Harold Porter, be awarded to plaintiff [this petitioner]." On the twelfth day of July, 1900, L. A. Porter, the defendant in the divorce suit, filed in the said district court his petition praying for a modification of said decree to the effect that the children of plaintiff and defendant, Neeta and Harold Porter, be permitted to visit the defendant at all reasonable and proper times, and to come to the home of the defendant, and that the defendant be permitted to visit the said children at reasonable and proper times at the home of the plaintiff and all other places that such children may be; and for a further order that the plaintiff be restrained from estranging the said children from the defendant, and preventing the same from being done by others. To this petition an answer was filed by the plaintiff, and a hearing had before the court of the eleventh day of September, 1900, and on the fourteenth day of September, 1900, the said district court made an order granting the prayer of the petition. It is contended by the petitioner here that said hearing was had and order made by the said judge at chambers, and not by the court, and was therefore in excess of the jurisdiction of said judge. This contention is not borne out by the record:

"Sept Term, 1900, Seventh Judicial Day, September 11th, 1900. Among others, the following proceedings were had (pages 411 and 412 of records of district court): No. 255 1/2. Mary A. Porter Plaintiff, v. L. A. Porter, Defendant. On motion of E. O'Neill, Esq., this cause is placed upon the calendar, and now this case comes on regularly on petition of L. A. Porter for order of court granting privilege of...