Shawver v. Shawver

• Decision Date: 03 November 1913
• Citation: 136 P. 436,25 Idaho 70
• Parties: MARTHA SHAWVER, Appellant, v. ALBERT O. SHAWVER and LEROY A. SHAWVER, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

136 P. 436

25 Idaho 70

MARTHA SHAWVER, Appellant, v. ALBERT O. SHAWVER and LEROY A. SHAWVER, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 3, 1913

FINDINGS-IMMATERIAL ISSUES.

1. Evidence examined in this case and held sufficient to support findings.

2. It is not necessary for a trial court to make findings on collateral or immaterial issues where a finding either for or against the losing party could not change the judgment.

3. Held, that the findings in this case support the judgment.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.

Suit for divorce. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. No costs awarded.

C. H Edwards, for Appellant.

The judgment is against the law, first because the court did not find on all the material issues raised by the pleadings and upon which evidence was introduced; second, because the plaintiff proved her case by unimpeached and uncontradicted testimony and by a preponderance of the evidence, and had a legal right to a decree of divorce. (Sandstrom v Smith, 12 Idaho 446, 86 P. 416; Franklin v Franklin, 140 Cal. 607, 74 P. 155; Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Cal. 375.)

The court is compelled to grant a decree when the plaintiff has proved her case by a preponderance of the evidence. (Wald v. Wald, 119 Mo.App. 341, 96 S.W. 302; Raney v. Raney, 128 Mo.App. 167, 106 S.W. 577; Orton v. Orton, 159 Mich. 236, 134 Am. St. 716, 123 N.W. 1103, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 276; Spitsnaugle v. Spitsnaugle, 87 Kan. 408, 124 P. 162; Locke v. Locke, 152 Cal. 56, 94 P. 244; Decker v. Decker, 56 Ore. 381, 108 P. 777.)

Karl Paine, for Respondents.

Had the court granted the appellant a divorce, the issue presented by the pleadings with reference to her right to have the respondent's property subjected to the payment thereof would have required a finding; but the decision of the court being that the appellant was not entitled to a divorce, a finding as to the status of the property was wholly immaterial and could not affect the judgment. (State v. Baird, 13 Idaho 126, 134, 89 P. 298; Brown v. Macey, 13 Idaho 451, 90 P. 339; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Idaho 221, 96 P. 936; Mine etc. Co. v. Idaho etc. Mines Co., 20 Idaho 300, 118 P. 301.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

In this case the evidence is sufficient to support the findings. The findings in turn substantially comply with the requirements of the statute and cover all the material issues. (Sandstrom v. Smith, 12 Idaho 446, 86 P. 416; Brown v. Macey, 13 Idaho 451, 90 P. 339.) It was not necessary for the court to make findings on immaterial or collateral issues, or on any issue where a finding either way could not have affected or changed the judgment that was entered in the case. (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Idaho 190, 85 P. 490; State v. Baird, 13 Idaho 126, 89 P. 298.)

The findings in this case are sufficient to support the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered. No costs awarded.

Sullivan and Stewar...