Herman H. Taylor

This case involved an appeal from a conviction under C.S. sec. 8438 for knowingly buying or receiving stolen personal property for the defendant's gain or to prevent the owner from regaining possession. The defendant challenged the information as duplicitous for alleging both statutory intents conjunctively, argued that evidence was obtained through an unlawful search of a barn owned by his mother, and claimed a variance because the proof might support burglary or larceny instead. The court held that the statute creates a single offense that can be charged with both intents, that the mother's consent validated the search given the defendant's subservient possession, and that evidence of receiving at least some of the property after it was stolen supported the conviction without variance. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim brought by the state on behalf of the Industrial Accident Board to recover $1,000 after an employee of Clearwater Timber Co. was killed in a train collision while driving to work across a public railroad crossing. The district court denied the claim, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The court held that the fatal injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment because the employee was traveling on a public highway and crossing over which the employer had no control, and the risk was one shared by the general public rather than a hazard peculiar to the job. The opinion distinguished cases involving private ways or employer-invited routes and followed the majority rule that public-road dangers do not qualify for compensation absent special circumstances making the exposure abnormal. The judgment in favor of the employer was therefore upheld.

labor & employment

The case involved a Montana building and loan association seeking to foreclose a first mortgage on Idaho real estate after default on monthly payments under a note that included interest and premium. The second mortgage holder defended and cross-claimed, alleging the contract was usurious under Idaho law and seeking to apply prior payments to principal only. The court held that a junior lienholder has standing to raise usury due to statutory rights to redeem the property and subrogate to the senior lien. It ruled the note was governed by Idaho law rather than Montana's and was usurious because the effective interest rate exceeded ten percent, but found the second mortgagee could not recover or offset prior interest payments made by the original borrowers. The judgment was modified to eliminate interest on the remaining principal and reduce attorney's fees from $370 to $200.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an appeal from a conviction as a persistent violator of the Prohibition Law, challenging the denial of a motion in arrest of judgment, the denial of a motion for new trial, and the admission of evidence from a search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the motion in arrest was untimely under statute and not properly raised on appeal from the judgment alone, while the appeal did not encompass the motion for new trial. On the evidence issue, the court held that objections to the search warrant and resulting evidence were not made in a timely manner, as the defendant knew of the search from the outset but waited until mid-trial to raise concerns about its validity or return. The court further found sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting the state to briefly reopen its case to introduce proof of a prior conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a trial court's order denying a motion for new trial after the court had granted judgment to defendant Lewiston National Bank at the close of the plaintiff's evidence in a non-jury trial. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the motion was premature and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The core reasoning was that, under C.S. secs. 6887, 6888, and 6890, the "decision" that starts the ten-day period for filing a new trial motion in a court-tried case is the written findings of fact and conclusions of law, not an earlier oral announcement granting judgment; precedents confirmed that premature motions fail to comply with the statutory requirements.

procedure

The case concerns the application of the statute of limitations to an action seeking recovery on a promissory note, specifically addressing when the limitations period begins and whether it was tolled or restarted by certain actions. The opinion agrees that the period started running from the date of the note and that interest payments made by White did not suspend the statute as to defendant Kasiska. It differs, however, by finding that letters in the record amounted to an adequate acknowledgment of the debt sufficient to prevent the limitations period from expiring before suit was filed, and therefore concludes the judgment should be affirmed.

procedure

In State v. Alvord, the defendant appealed his conviction for raping a girl under fifteen years old after she and friends visited his home, where he allegedly offered them whiskey before the incident. The court addressed challenges to the admission of testimony about the whiskey offer, which the prosecution argued was part of the res gestae or showed a preconceived plan, as well as the refusal of jury instructions on simple assault as a lesser included offense and on disregarding witness testimony. The court held that the liquor evidence was properly admitted because it was relevant to intent or formed an inseparable part of the events, citing principles from Wigmore on evidence, and that any error in refusing the assault instruction was harmless since the jury had convicted on the higher charge of rape despite options for attempt or assault with intent. It also found the given instruction on false testimony sufficient and rejected claims about excessive sentence or new trial grounds. The judgment and order denying a new trial were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether liens for personal property taxes assessed against a mortgagor in years after a mortgage was executed, and recorded against the mortgaged real property, take priority over the mortgage itself. The trial court sustained a demurrer and ruled that the tax liens had priority. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed that ruling, holding that the mortgage took priority over the later tax liens, and it did so by following its recent decision in Scottish American Mortgage Co. v. Minidoka County. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that precedent.

taxesproperty

In Vollmer v. Vollmer, the husband sued for divorce alleging desertion by the wife after she left in 1921, while the wife denied desertion and asserted that her separation was justified by the husband's health condition and medical advice against cohabitation. She also filed claims seeking separate maintenance, support for herself and their child, attorney's fees, and costs, along with a cross-complaint against the husband's family and bank for concealing assets. The trial court denied divorce to both parties, dismissed claims against the bank, and awarded the wife separate maintenance. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of divorce and the award of maintenance based on equity jurisdiction and evidence supporting justification for the wife's absence, but modified the judgment by reducing the monthly allowance from $300 to $150, attorney's fees from $15,000 to $2,000, and striking provisions for a home purchase and post-dissolution payments.

family law

The case Hudson v. Kootenai Fox Farms Co. concerned a corporate dispute involving the authority of company officers. The majority opinion held that the defendant was required to plead lack of authority of the corporate officers as part of its defense. Justice Taylor concurred in part but dissented on this point, reasoning that the issue had not been raised by the parties in the lower court or on appeal and was improperly addressed by the court on its own initiative. Taylor further concluded that the verified answer in the case had already sufficiently raised the issue, making the majority's holding incorrect as a matter of law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff against two individuals operating as partners under the name Chaffee Auto Company, with the partnership allegation admitted by the defendants. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and against the defendants. The court clerk, however, mistakenly entered judgment against "the Chaffee Auto Company, a corporation" instead of the individual partners. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the judgment but ordered substitution of the partners' names, Geo. E. Chaffee and R.G. Rowe, in place of the incorrect corporate designation, with costs awarded to the respondent.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved an appeal in which the appellant filed the transcript in March 1927 but did not file or serve a brief until late August 1928, after respondents moved to dismiss for noncompliance with court rules. The parties disputed the existence and terms of an informal agreement excusing strict adherence to briefing deadlines, with the appellant attributing delay to a printer and the respondents asserting that any agreement required timely filing to allow a reply brief. The court held that it would not enforce such stipulations as a matter of right, that the appellant had shown no valid excuse for the sixteen-month delay, and that the failure resulted from procrastination that disrupted orderly court procedure. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, awarding costs to respondents.

procedure

In Kennison v. McMillan Sheep Co., the plaintiffs based their claims on the existence of a contract with the defendant sheep company. The court found insufficient evidence to prove any contract and determined that neither the pleadings nor the proof supported an estoppel claim. The opinion concurs with reversing the lower court's judgment but dissents from remanding for a new trial, concluding instead that judgment should be entered for the defendants due to the complete absence of a viable claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim for a hernia allegedly sustained during road work, governed by the strict evidentiary requirements of C.S. sec. 6235. The majority opinion awarded compensation based on an inference that the hernia appeared suddenly and was not pre-existing. The dissent argued there was no competent evidence meeting the statute's demands for proof of sudden and immediate onset accompanied by symptoms such as severe pain, nausea, or collapse, and that medical authorities and prior findings indicated the condition was likely a pre-existing hernia merely precipitated by strain. The dissent emphasized that the board and initial courts had found insufficient proof and that the statute's exceptions for hernias could not be nullified by inference alone.

labor & employment

The case Brown v. Jaeger arose from the same circumstances as two related prior cases and involved an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the trial court erred in denying a motion for nonsuit and a directed verdict. The court determined that the motion for nonsuit had been waived because it was not renewed at the close of all evidence, and after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, concluded that the plaintiff's conduct and protests presented a factual question for the jury rather than requiring a directed verdict. The judgment for the plaintiff was therefore affirmed.

procedure

The case involved a malpractice suit by a husband, acting individually and as guardian ad litem for his minor children, against a doctor for the death of the wife and mother allegedly caused by negligent diagnosis and treatment of a pregnancy-related condition starting in February 1925. The trial court denied a motion for new trial after a defense verdict, but the appellate court reversed that order and remanded for a new trial. The court held that jury instructions on contributory negligence were erroneous because the father's role in causing the initial pregnancy could not be a contributing cause to damages from the subsequent negligent treatment. It further ruled that in a wrongful death action under the relevant statute, the heirs stand in a representative capacity and may waive the physician-patient privilege, while autopsy evidence not derived from treatment is not privileged.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily lawhealthcare

This case involves a truck operator hauling lumber under exclusive private contracts who sought to enjoin the state Commissioner of Law Enforcement from enforcing 1925 and 1927 statutes that require auto transportation companies to obtain property damage insurance or a surety bond and pay permit and license fees. The trial court sustained a demurrer and issued the injunction; the Supreme Court affirmed. Relying on its earlier decision in Smallwood v. Jeter, the court held that the statutes apply only to common carriers and do not extend to private carriers, because the insurance and bond requirements show the legislature did not intend to regulate private carriers under the police power.

business & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff seeking payment from the defendant timber company for supplies and services he alleged were furnished directly to it. Evidence at trial, including contracts between the company and a logger named Clark, established that the plaintiff had actually provided the items to Clark as an independent contractor without authority to bind the defendant, and that bills had been rendered to Clark personally with some payments made via orders on the company. The trial court granted a nonsuit for the defendant after finding no written evidence of any promise by the company to answer for Clark's debts as required by statute, and no basis for estoppel. The judgment was affirmed on appeal because the evidence raised no triable issue of fact for the jury.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves disbarment proceedings against an attorney based on a letter proposing that a woman live with him in concubinage, form an illegal partnership, and use her to attract clients to his law and collection businesses. The court concurred in setting aside the Bar Commission's judgment but declined to dismiss the proceedings. It reasoned that the evidence tended to show a felony under state law as well as unprofessional conduct violating the attorney's oath and duties to support state laws and maintain respect for the courts, and that the court has inherent power to inquire into such conduct without awaiting a criminal conviction. The matter was therefore remanded to permit formal charges to be filed and considered based on the record or additional evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether material suppliers could enforce mechanics' liens against a public school building constructed by a contractor for an Idaho school district. The district had contracted within constitutional debt limits under article 8, section 3, but later expenditures exceeded available funds, leaving only a small balance. The trial court allowed limited lien recovery up to the remaining funds but disallowed further amounts, fees, or costs. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that C.S. section 7340, which expressly authorized liens on public buildings, was unconstitutional because it would impose liability on the district beyond authorized revenues, effectively lending its credit to contractors in violation of article 8, sections 3 and 4, and conflicting with public policy against execution sales of public property. The court reversed the judgments against the district and directed entry of judgments in its favor.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure