Shissler v. Crooks

Citation1 Idaho 369
PartiesF. Shissler, Appellant, v. J. M. Crooks, Respondent.
Decision Date01 January 1871
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

PRACTICE-APPEAL-NOTICE OF APPEAL-UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL.-Three things are necessary in order to perfect an appeal, and to give the supreme court jurisdiction: 1. A notice of appeal must be filed as required by law; 2. A copy of the notice must be served on the adverse party or his attorney; 3. An undertaking must be filed within five days after filing notice of the appeal.

APPEAL from the First Judicial District, Nez Perce County.

J. W Huston, for the Appellant. A. E. Isham, for the Respondent.

NOGGLE C. J.,

delivered the opinion.

LEWIS and WHITSON, JJ., concurred.

In this case a motion is made by the respondent to dismiss the appellant's appeal, for the reason that no undertaking was filed within the time fixed by section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. Three things must be done by the appellant to perfect an appeal and give the supreme court jurisdiction: 1. A notice of appeal must be filed. 2. A copy of the notice so filed must be served on the adverse party or his attorney, as provided in section 285 of the Civil Practice Act. And 3. The filing of the undertaking required by section 296 of said Civil Practice Act. Such undertaking must be filed within five days after the date of filing the notice of appeal, and an undertaking filed after that time is filed too late. The mover in this case insists that the time within which the undertaking might legally be filed had long before elapsed that the undertaking was in fact filed twenty-four days after the appellant filed his notice of appeal. In that he is sustained by the record returned to this court.

The record shows that an undertaking was filed on the ninth day of July, 1870, and the notice of appeal was filed on the fifteenth day of June, 1870. The undertaking not being filed within five days after filing the notice of appeal, for the purposes of an appeal in this case, there is no undertaking properly in the case, and this court has no jurisdiction.

In all cases of appeal from the district to the supreme court, such an undertaking as is required by section 296 of the Civil Practice Act, must be filed within five days after the date of filing the notice of appeal, and cannot legally be filed before the notice of appeal is filed, or after the expiration of five days after that date.

Section 285 of the Civil Practice Act says: "The appeal shall be made by filing with the clerk of the court with whom the judgment or order appealed from is entered, a notice stating the appeal from the same, or some specific part thereof, and serving a copy of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People's Savings & Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Rayl
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 23 Marzo 1928
    ...or function to perform. The case stands therefore as if no undertaking had been given, and there was no appeal perfected." (Shissler v. Crooks, 1 Idaho 369; People v. Hunt, 1 Idaho 371; Wilson Bartlett, 7 Idaho 269, 62 P. 415; Healy v. Taylor, 37 Idaho 749, 218 P. 190; Brown v. Green, 65 Ca......
  • Mathers v. Mathers
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 1926
    ... ... an undertaking on appeal. Unless this order is followed the ... appeal is subject to dismissal. (Shissler v. Crooks, ... 1 Idaho 369; People v. Hunt, 1 Idaho 371; Clark ... v. Loewenberg, 1 Idaho 654; Wilson v. Bartlett, 7 Idaho ... 269, 62 P. 415.) ... ...
  • Oliverson v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 1963
    ...time prescribed by I.C. § 13-202 is mandatory, and compliance with such statute is jurisdictional. A few of these decisions are: Shissler v. Crooks, 1 Idaho 369; Brown v. Hanley, 3 Idaho 219, 28 P. 425; Hattabaugh v. Vollmer, 5 Idaho 23, 46 P. 831; Cole v. Fox, 13 Idaho 123, 88 P. 561. More......
  • Hattabaugh v. Vollmer
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 17 Noviembre 1896
    ...to run until the three acts have been done, to wit: The filing and serving of notice of appeal and filing the undertaking. (See Shissler v. Crooks, 1 Idaho 369; Miller Mining Co., 3 Idaho 426, 31 P. 802.) In the last-cited case this court said that an appeal is perfected when the notice of ......
  • 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