Case Name: D. C. WOOD, Respondent, v. N. TANNER, Jr., Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1909-01-21
Citations: 15 Idaho 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: D. C. WOOD, Respondent, v. N. TANNER, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Ailshie, J., concurs.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 689–692

Head Matter:
(January 21, 1909.)
D. C. WOOD, Respondent, v. N. TANNER, Jr., Appellant.
[99 Pac. 123.]
Transcript — Bill of Exceptions — Time of Piling — Motion for a New Trial — Appeal.
1. Where the transcript shows'that the hill of exceptions was not settled and filed until after the hearing of the motion for new trial, such bill of exceptions will be stricken from the transcript. Buckle v. McConaghy, 11 Ida. 533, 83 Pae. 525, followed and approved.
2. Where an appeal is taken from an order denying a new trial after the expiration of one year from date of judgment, and proper diligence is not shown in prosecuting such appeal, the same will be dismissed upon proper motion. Smith v. American Falls Canal Power Co., 15 Ida. 89, 95 Pae. 1059, followed and approved.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District for Bingham County. Hon. J. M. Stevens, Judge.
An action to recover damages for breach of the terms of a lease. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
N. Tanner, Jr., and Hawley, Puckett & Hawley, for Appellant, cite no authorities.
A. M. Bowen, for Respondent.
Unless good cause is shown for delay, an appeal from an order denying a new trial will be dismissed upon motion, where such motion for new trial was not brought on for hearing within one year after the rendition of the judgment. (McCrea v. McGrew, 9 Ida. 382, 75 Pac. 67; Smith v. American Falls etc. Go., 15 Ida. 89, 95 Pac. 1059.)
The statutes of the state contemplate that the motion for a new trial shall not be heard until after the bill of exceptions shall have been settled and filed. (Sec. 4442, Rev. Stat.; Buckle v. McConaghy, 11 Ida. 533, 83 Pac. 525; Mills v. Dear-horn, 82 Cal. 51, 22 Pac. 1114; Mix v. San Diego etc. B. B., 86 Cal. 235, 24 Pae. 1027.)

Opinion:
STEWART, J.
In this ease the respondent recovered a judgment against the appellant for the sum of $1,200 for breach of the terms of a lease. The appellant moved for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court, and this appeal is from the order overruling the motion for a new trial.
In this court, respondent moves to strike the bill of exceptions from the transcript and to dismiss the appeal. The first motion must be sustained upon the authority of Buckle v. McConaghy, 11 Ida. 533, 83 Pac. 525, which is followed and approved. The second motion must be sustained upon the authority of Smith v. American Falls Canal & Power Co., 15 Ida. 89, 95 Pac. 1059, which is followed and approved. The appeal, therefore, in this case is dismissed. Costs awarded to respondent.
(March 6, 1909.)
[99 Pac. 1053.]
Ailshie, J., concurs.