Case ID: idaho_51/html/0105-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GIVENS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(No. 5705.
    September 26, 1931.)
    ERNEST BEDFORD, an Incompetent, by S. BEN DUNLAP, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. GEM IRRIGATION DISTRICT, JESS HOPKINS and MARY HOPKINS, Husband and Wife, Appellants.
    [4 Pac. (2d) 366.]
    
      S. Ben Dunlap and Walter Griffiths, for Respondent.
    Earl E. Garrity and Scatterday & Stone, for Appellants.
   GIVENS, J.

Respondent seeks diminution of the record to supply an agreement made between the parties subsequent to the trial, appeal and preparation of the transcript, which agreement respondent contends has disposed of one of the issues on appeal, rendering the same moot.

Diminution of the record is to supply something omitted which should have been in the transcript, or correct an error, not to supply new matter which could, or should not have been in the transcript. (Newby v. City of St. Anthony, 48 Ida. 608, 284 Pac. 1028; Rule 29, Supreme Court, in effect Aug. 25, 1926.)

If an issue in an appeal has become moot since the appeal was taken, the proper procedure is to move to dismiss, and upon such motion the court may consider evidence outside the original record. (Abels v. Turner Trust Co., 31 Ida. 777, 176 Pac. 884.)

Motion for diminution of the record denied.

Budge, Yarian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.