Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1890-11-12
THE SEAT OF LOGAN COUNTY.

Judge Beatty Denies q Stay of Proceed.
jnss Pending APppal-lt Must, There.
fore. 10 10 Bellevue.
Judge Beatty has decided the con.
test over the seat of Logan county.
He filed his decision this morning. II
Is as follows:
Charles S. Doan ct al, plaintiffs, vs..
John HALEY ct al, defendants.
In this cause the order temporarily
restraining defendants from removing
the records and property pertaining
to the county seat OF Logan was on
, the 18th day of October set aside, and
the injunction asked by plaintiff
denied.
From such action plaintiffs have
taken their appeal to the Supreme
Court, which was, upon affidavit set.
ting out that the removal of such rec.
ords will cause expense 70 the tax.
payers and Inconvenience to some of
the county officers now settled q; Sho.
shone, ask that, pending such appeal,
such records shall remain as they
now are, or in effect that the defend
ants be enjoined from their removal.
In support of such proceedings no
statute of our State is cited. Section
4o17 provides that a compliance with
Sec. 1909 "stays proceedings in the
court taken upon the judgment or
order appealed FROM" which seems at
first glance applicable; but by MERGED
NJ. Co. VS.. Fremont, Z CAL, $50, a
similar statute is construed as having
no application to such an order as this
II, however, a compliance with such
statute operates to so stay proceed
ings that the records in question
should not be removed penhing APP
peal, then no order upon the defend
ants is now necessary.
What would be the effect of grant.
ing plaintiffs present motion ? A
hearing has b. en- had aud the conclu
sion reached that plaintiffs are not
entitled to an injunction pendente
lite. Nothing was commanded to te
done, no judgment was rendered to
be enforced, the parties were left a,
the court found them. There is there
fore no order, judgment or other pro-
ceeding of the court to be STAYED
pending appeal. The stay of pro
Greetings contemplated by the statute
is the suspension Of action upon a
Judgment or the enforcement of sumo
order or direction of the court. The
plaintiffs 10 no. now ask stay of any
proceedings of the court, but that the
defendants be stayed-in effect, that
they be e"joined from removing such
records, etc, which is Just what was
asked aud refused in the first Instance.
Would not the granting of this mo.
ton now present most contradictory
record and place the court in the
absurd position of refusing in one
breath an injunction, and by the pc xt
granting 1t?
Suppose another order should now
be made restraining defendants as
asked, what is there to prevent them,
il plaintiffs theory is correct, from
from such order and claim.
ing that its effect must be STAYED bv
such appeal, and they allowed to pro-
coed to the removal of the records!
Such conclusion seems as logical as
plaintiffs position.
Hicks VS.. Michael, Is CAL, 1907. is
Il case in which an inso!vent defend.
ant was temporarily restrained from
such cutting of timber as amounted
to q destruction Of the freehold. On
hearing to show cause, ETC., this order
was dissolved and injunction refused.
1t is like this case, except that then
the damage was irreparable, while here
it is not, and the court held that, in
effect, no stay Of proceedings should
be granted that would operate to
revive the restraining order or to
create an injunction.
Plaintiffs cite Dewey Us. Superior
Court, 81 Cal, Ga. The chief ques.
ton in this case was as to the effect
IF n ~.ndutnrv ;n,uuctiOn "A h;oh tho