Alfred Budge

In Stearns v. Strom, the plaintiff, suing as a special administrator, failed at trial to prove his qualifications under Idaho Code Ann. § 15-366 by showing that his appointment remained valid and unrevoked. The defendant moved for nonsuit under Idaho Code Ann. § 7-705(5), which the trial court granted; the resulting judgment included the phrase “without prejudice,” from which the plaintiff appealed. The dissenting opinion concludes that the statute renders any such dismissal a bar to refiling the same claim, rendering the added phrase surplusage that formed no part of a valid judgment and therefore provided no basis for appeal. The dissent further notes that a 1931 statutory amendment changed prior practice allowing nonsuits without prejudice and urges dismissal of the appeal.

procedure

The case involved a property owner who sought a writ of mandate to compel the county treasurer to accept payment of back taxes and issue a redemption deed for land acquired by the county via tax deed in 1936. The trial court quashed the writ, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the owner's redemption rights were governed by the 1935 version of the relevant tax statute (sec. 61-1023, I.C.A., as amended by Chapter 101, Sess.Laws 1935) rather than the 1947 amendment. The court reasoned that redemption procedures and timelines are determined by the law in effect when the county obtained title, the 1947 changes were not retroactive under Idaho Code section 70-101, and the county still held the property subject to redemption at the time of the owner's application. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the writ.

propertytaxesprocedure

In State v. Kenworthy, the defendant was convicted of grand larceny for stealing saddles, blankets, and other items from the Palmer Implement Company store. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the information, arguing it failed to allege ownership by a legal entity capable of owning property and did not adequately describe the stolen items. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that under state statutes like sec. 19-1315, I.C.A., and relevant precedents, it was sufficient to allege ownership in the company name without specifying its corporate or partnership status, and any variances did not prejudice the defendant. The court also upheld the jury's rejection of the defendant's explanation for possessing the property, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a default judgment entered against the defendant circus company that included an award of punitive damages, followed by the trial court's decision to vacate the default and allow the case to proceed on the merits. The opinion concurs that the punitive damages portion of the judgment is void because no such damages were alleged in the complaint itself, only in the prayer for relief, depriving the court of jurisdiction to award them. It dissents from the reversal of the order vacating the default judgment, reasoning that default judgments are disfavored and that the trial court has broad statutory discretion under sec. 5-905, I.C.A., to set them aside for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect when shown by affidavits, with the policy favoring resolution on the merits and deference to the trial court's exercise of that discretion absent clear abuse. Numerous prior Idaho decisions and analogous Montana authority are cited to support upholding the trial court's action in granting relief.

procedure

The case concerned whether a foreign life insurance company authorized to do business in Idaho owed state income tax on profits from selling real estate acquired through mortgage foreclosures in 1943 and 1944. The court held that the company was not liable for income tax on those profits. The decision rested on a specific statute defining gross income for life insurance companies as limited to interest, dividends, and rents arising in Idaho, which had not been amended or repealed by later general income tax provisions. The court rejected the state's argument that the tax was an excise or that general amendments imposed liability on real estate sales, noting that life insurance companies are specially regulated and that the statute tracked federal law excluding capital gains.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a tort action by one brother against another alleging unauthorized sale and conversion of cattle originally derived from a heifer purchased by the plaintiff as a minor, with the proceeds retained by the defendant. The court affirmed judgment for the defendant, ruling that the statute of limitations barred the claim. The core reasoning was that the defendant had exercised peaceable, open, notorious, and exclusive possession of the cattle under claim of right for a period exceeding the statutory limit following a 1934 foreclosure sale and related events, which started the limitations clock and transferred superior title to him despite the disputed origins of ownership.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns the probate of Henry S. Davenport's estate, including the calculation of executor commissions and attorney fees, as well as the validity of a sale of certain securities. The court held that the executor and attorney were entitled to compensation calculated on the full value of the community estate plus the decedent's separate property, rather than only the decedent's half-interest in the community property. It further ruled that the sale of the surviving spouse's half-interest in the securities was void because it was not required to pay community debts and the decedent lacked authority to dispose of or authorize sale of that vested interest. The decision rests on Idaho statutes governing probate administration of community property for debt settlement and the principle that each spouse's interest in community property is equal and not subject to the other's testamentary power except as to debts. The cause was remanded to modify the decree accordingly, which was then affirmed.

family lawproperty

This case concerned Rome Webster, a sawyer at Potlatch Forests, Inc., whose employment ended after he refused to operate a newly installed electrical saw guide control device unless granted additional pay, leading him to seek unemployment compensation benefits. The majority opinion awarded benefits under Idaho's Unemployment Compensation Law. In dissent, Chief Justice Budge contended that Webster had voluntarily left his job without good cause and that the separation was wholly attributable to him, since he acknowledged he could use the device but insisted on higher wages as a condition of doing so. The dissent reasoned that the statute limits benefits to those unemployed through no fault of their own and that the majority's approach would improperly expand eligibility.

labor & employment

The case concerned a plaintiff's Nash sedan that was towed to the defendant garage for repairs after an accident and stored inside, where it was destroyed by fire; the fire allegedly started when a mechanic opened a valve on a gasoline tank truck, causing fuel to spill and ignite an electric light. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for nonsuit after the plaintiff's evidence, dismissing the negligence claim. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case by proving the bailment and the car's destruction while in the bailee's sole possession, which shifted the burden to the defendants to show they exercised proper care. The court held that whether negligence caused the fire presented a factual question for the jury under the nonsuit statute, and the trial court erred in not submitting the case to the jury.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

In State v. Golden, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Mildred L. Rusho in Ada County, Idaho, on September 30, 1946; he pleaded not guilty, was convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court held that the appeal from the judgment was untimely under the 30-day statutory limit and thus not reviewable, but it considered the appeal from the denial of a new trial. The court affirmed the conviction and denial of a new trial, reasoning that the jury instructions properly presented the defense theory and the state's robbery theory, that substantial evidence supported both the murder charge and the robbery connection, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial given the sufficiency of the evidence and lack of reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal from the Industrial Accident Board's denial of workers' compensation benefits to the appellant in a dispute over an on-the-job injury. The court reversed the Board's order, concluding that the accident and resulting injury did arise out of the appellant's employment. It directed that the order be vacated and that further proceedings be held under the Workmen’s Compensation Law to determine the claim. The decision rested on the precedent established in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hoage and related cases.

labor & employment

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the family of Charley Willis against a hospital association, two doctors, and a nurse, alleging negligence in the care provided after Willis suffered a severe injury requiring leg amputation, including claims of inadequate medical attention, failure to set broken bones, rejection of family assistance, and improper transfer to a state hospital while unhealed. The trial court granted a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to present competent, substantial evidence establishing a prima facie case that any acts or omissions by the defendants were the proximate cause of death, and that expert testimony was required but lacking on the scientific medical issues involved.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case concerns the interpretation of a state employment compensation statute as applied to a company's food processing operations involving brining cherries and dehydrating apples. The majority held that brining cherries constitutes exempt agricultural labor under the statute, while dehydrating apples does not qualify for the exemption and is covered by the compensation law. The dissent notes inconsistencies in the statute and argues that the company must be treated consistently—either liable for both activities or exempt from both—while suggesting legislative clarification may be needed.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case Venus Foods v. District Court of Eleventh Judicial Dist. came before the court for decision. Chief Justice Budge was unable to hear oral arguments due to circumstances beyond his control. After reviewing the record and the opinion in the matter, he concluded that the decision was correct and therefore concurred in it.

procedure

This case involved an action by property owners to cancel ad valorem taxes levied by Canyon County on certain land for the years 1932, 1933, and 1935, and to restrain the county from asserting those taxes, after the land had been deeded to the State of Idaho in satisfaction of a mortgage. The trial court canceled the taxes and quieted title in the plaintiffs free of the tax liens. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, relying on its prior decisions in State v. Reed and State v. County of Minidoka, which established the applicable legal principles.

taxesproperty

This case involved a post-divorce dispute between former spouses over custody of their minor daughter and the validity of an adoption. In 1941 the mother received custody under the divorce decree; in 1945 the father sought to modify that decree, alleging the mother had abandoned the child and that an adoption by the mother's new husband, obtained without notice to him, was void. The court held the adoption proceedings invalid for lack of notice to the natural father and failure to allege required facts such as abandonment. It then modified the custody order to award the mother custody during the school year and the father custody during summer vacations, while preserving reasonable visitation rights for both parents, reasoning that custody orders remain subject to modification based on changed circumstances and the child's best interests and that the trial court had not abused its discretion.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a conviction for involuntary manslaughter arising from the defendant driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in a careless and reckless manner that endangered persons and property, resulting in a death. The majority reversed the conviction, finding prejudicial error in a jury instruction that added language about driving 'at a speed' not present in the charging information. In this partial concurrence and dissent, the opinion argues that the added words did not permit conviction on any ground outside the information, that reading the instructions as a whole showed no prejudice to the defendant, and that any error was harmless under statutes requiring reversal only for errors affecting substantial rights. The dissent would therefore affirm the judgment rather than remand for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns an appeal from orders of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission denying James O. Malone a permit to operate as a common carrier of passengers and express between Boise and Stibnite, and issuing a cease and desist order against his existing contract carrier operations. The court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over contract carriers and that Malone was entitled to the common carrier permit. The reasoning was that the relevant statute requires only a showing of good cause and public interest for granting such a permit, not public convenience and necessity, and that Malone had demonstrated these requirements were met based on inadequate prior service and public need.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Finch, the parties stipulated that the appeal raised identical questions to those in the companion cases of State v. Romich and State v. Leonard, agreeing that the decision should follow those cases without filing new briefs. The Idaho Supreme Court, citing its ruling in State v. Romich, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The court directed that the appellant receive a trial by jury consistent with the precedent established in the Romich decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction under Boise City ordinance 4-802 for drinking intoxicating liquor in a public place, specifically the restaurant of the Boise Hotel. The appellant challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional, an improper exercise of municipal police power, and in conflict with the Idaho Liquor Act. The court held that the 1934 constitutional amendment and the state liquor control laws did not grant the legislature exclusive authority over drinking in public places within cities, leaving room for local regulation under a municipality's police powers. It further found the ordinance sufficiently definite in defining a public place and not repugnant to state statutes. The conviction was affirmed.

criminal law