Case Name: WALLACE v. McKINLAY
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1898-05-09
Citations: 6 Idaho 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: WALLACE v. McKINLAY.
Judges: Sullivan, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
(May 9, 1898.)
WALLACE v. McKINLAY.
[53 Pac. 104.]
UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL-VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY.-Oil an appeal from a judgment and from an order sustaining a demurrer to defendants’ amended answer and undertaking, which provides “that said appellants will pay all damages and costs which may he awarded against them on the appeal or on a dismissal thereof, only, without reference to either appeal, is insufficient.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County.
H. T. Samuels and Jones & Morphy, for Appellants.
No brief filed.
C. W. Beale, for Respondent,
cites no authorities upon the point on which the court dismissed the appeal, to wit, for the want of an undertaking on appeal.

Opinion:
HUSTON, J.
— This was an appeal from a judgment and from an order sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to defendants' amended answer. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by respondent. The motion enumerates several grounds, but upon the hearing but one ground was argued, viz., the insufficiency of the undertaking. The undertaking provided only "that said appellants will pay all damages and costs which may be awarded against them on the appeal or on a dismissal thereof," without any reference to which appeal it was intended to apply. It is urged by the appellants that, as the order sustaining the demurrer was not an appealable order, the appeal therefrom should be treated as surplusage, and the undertaking be sustained upon the appeal from the judgment. We cannot agree with this contention. Appellants appealed from both the order and the judgment and the undertaking covering but one appeal. It is not the province of this court to say to 'which appeal it is intended to apply. Appellants must stand or fall by the record they have presented to this court, tinder repeated rulings of this court, the motion to dismiss is allowed, with costs to respondent. (See Kelly v. Leachman, decided by this court, and reported in 5 Idaho, 521, 51 Pac. 407, and cases there cited.)
Sullivan, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.