Isaac N. Sullivan

This case involved a property owner, Zilka, whose brick building collapsed after adjacent excavation work ordered by defendant Graham and performed by defendant England. Zilka sued both as joint tortfeasors for negligence, seeking damages for the building's destruction, lost rents, and removal costs. A jury awarded Zilka $3,000 against Graham but found in favor of England, and the trial court denied Graham's motion for a new trial while taxing costs against her. On appeal, the court affirmed the verdicts and cost order, reasoning that substantial evidence showed England worked under Graham's architect's direction rather than as an independent contractor, that Graham failed to provide the statutory notice required before excavation, and that the shoring method used was inadequate, making Graham liable for the resulting damage.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a claim under an accident insurance policy after the plaintiff fell from a roof and was disabled from work for nine months. The insurer defended on the ground that the plaintiff failed to provide timely written notice of the injury as required by the policy. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the insurer waived the notice defense through its conduct, including accepting late proofs of loss without objection, requesting additional information and physician reports, investigating the claim, and denying liability on other grounds. The court also noted that certain policy limitations on the timing of suits were void under Idaho statute.

business & regulatory

This case was a contract dispute in which an architect sued a hotel lessee to recover fees for preparing building plans and specifications for a hotel addition that was never constructed using those plans. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff after a jury trial, but the Supreme Court reversed and directed entry of judgment for the defendant. The court held that an architect owes an implied duty to furnish plans suitable for their intended use, including compliance with any agreed cost limits, structural requirements, building laws, and complete bid and contract documentation; the evidence showed the plans here were defective in foundation, plumbing, wiring, cost estimates, and missing contractual elements, rendering them unusable.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over a real estate brokerage commission claimed by the plaintiffs for facilitating the sale of approximately 2,720 acres of land in Idaho County that was held by a syndicate known as the Denver Townsite Company. The plaintiffs, brokers based in Moscow, provided a letter of introduction to a potential buyer named Mulhall after he visited their office while traveling to inspect the property, which had been listed by the deceased owner Benjamin F. Morris. The trial court had awarded the commission, but on appeal the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the judgment and ordered dismissal of the action. The court reasoned that the brokers did not procure the purchaser, as Mulhall had already received information about the land from Morris, had traveled over 2,000 miles to view it, and decided to buy without any material influence from the plaintiffs' actions. The decision emphasized that the brokers' involvement was incidental and did not meet the requirements for earning a commission.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over a building contract between contractors and the owner of St. Joseph's Hospital, concerning delays in completion caused by the architect (the owner's agent), claims for extensions of time, extra work due to plan changes, and the effect of the architect's final certificate. The court held that the contract's requirement for a written application for time extensions within 24 hours was waived by the architect's conduct, so the owner could not deduct for delays; the final certificate was not conclusive; and the contract's arbitration clause making the arbitrators' decision final was void under Idaho statute section 3229 because it restricted parties from enforcing rights in ordinary courts. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial or revised findings, concluding the contractors were entitled to the contract price without delay deductions and to reasonable value for extra work.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Bannock County suing its former district court clerk (who also served as ex-officio auditor and recorder) to recover fees allegedly paid illegally or in excess for official services performed in 1893 and 1894, totaling over $700 after partial allowances by the county commissioners. The trial court entered judgment for the county, but the Idaho Supreme Court reversed on appeal. The court held that both causes of action were barred by the four-year statute of limitations under Revised Statutes sections 4053, 4060, and 4061, which expressly apply to the state and its counties the same as to private parties; the claims accrued upon the 1894 and 1895 payments but the suit was not filed until 1900. The decision further reasoned that implied trusts do not exempt such actions from the limitations period, overruling contrary prior precedent, and that no demand was required to start the clock on fees wrongfully retained.

procedure

This case involved Canyon County suing Ada County to recover additional sums related to the division of Ada County's pre-existing indebtedness and assets after Canyon County was carved out of it by statute. Accountants and then appointed agents for the two counties reached a settlement resolving all disputes, which was ratified by both boards of commissioners through detailed resolutions declaring the accounts balanced and setting terms for future bond payments. Canyon County later sought a share of recoveries Ada County obtained from former officials and a compromise on certain warrants. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding the settlement binding on the counties and, alternatively, that any claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to statutory liabilities because the right of action had accrued at the time of the settlement.

procedure

The case Haskins v. Curran concerned a contract dispute in which Haskins advanced funds to Curran and Hussey to develop mining claims under a bond in exchange for a one-third interest, and later sued to recover those advances after work ceased. Appellants defended on grounds that the arrangement created a mining partnership barring an action at law until a full accounting, and that a later agreement had superseded the original contract. The court held that the parties formed an express mining partnership through their agreement and conduct in working the mines, consistent with state statutes defining such partnerships for development and extraction purposes. It further addressed the pleading of the subsequent contract as a defense and counterclaim, distinguishing it from an optional escrow arrangement. The appellate court denied rehearing and maintained its prior conclusions on these issues.

business & regulatoryproperty