Case ID: idaho_7/html/0598-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SULLIVAN, J. QUARLES, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(April 27, 1901.)
    TANNAHILL v. BLACK.
    [65 Pac. 1113.]
    This ease was submitted with that Ponting v. Isaman, ante, p. 577, 65 Pae. 434, and same decision rendered as in that case.
    E. O’Neill and Miles S. Johnson, for Appellant.
    Brief in Ponting v. Isaman applies to this case.
    Benjamin F. Tweedy and James W. Reid, for Respondent.
    Same brief as in case of Ponting v. Isaman.
    
   SULLIVAN, J.

The above-entitled case was submitted with that of Ponting v. Isaman, ante, p. 577, 65 Pac. 434, and the decision in this case was to follow the decision in that. It is therefore ordered that the judgment be reversed, and that the cause be remanded, with instructions to the lower court to set aside said judgment and to enter judgment in favor of the appellant, dismissing this proceeding. Costs of this appeal are awarded to the appellant.

Stockslager, J., concurs.

QUARLES, C. J.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion prepared by me in Ponting v. Isaman, ante, p. 577, 65 Pac. 434, I dissent from the conclusion reached in this case. One feature appears in this case which does not exist in the Isaman case, and that is the fact that the appellant in this ease charged his expenses and six dollars per diem for time spent in going from his home to the county site and returning. This fact, to my mind, is contrary to the conclusion that “he honestly believed” that he was entitled to the fees that he charged and collected. The judgment in this case should be affirmed.