Case Name: HESTER B. HUFTON, Appellant, v. WILLIAM HUFTON, Respondent
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1913-11-06
Citations: 25 Idaho 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: HESTER B. HUFTON, Appellant, v. WILLIAM HUFTON, Respondent.
Judges: Ailshie, C. J., and Stewart, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
(November 6, 1913.)
HESTER B. HUFTON, Appellant, v. WILLIAM HUFTON, Respondent.
[136 Pac. 605.]
Action for Divorce — Conflict in Evidence.
1. Where there is a substantial conflict in evidence, the findings of faet and judgment based thereon -will not be set aside on appeal.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.
Action for divorce. Judgment for defendant.
Affirmed.
Pence & Koelsch, for Appellant.
■ “The findings of fact must support the judgment, and if not, the judgment must be reversed.” (Ponting v. Isaman, 7 Ida. 581, 65 Pac. 434.) .
“There is not a substantial conflict in the evidence such as to bring it within the rule that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the finding of the court will not be disturbed.” (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Ida. 190, 85 Pac. 490.)
“In equity cases the appellate court will examine the evidence with a view to sustain the trial court in its findings and judgment, but will reverse the judgment if the evidence, is insufficient to sustain it.” {Small v. Harrington, 10 Ida. 499, 79 Pac. 461.1
D. T. Miller and Ira E. Barber, for Respondent.
"Where there is substantial conflict in the evidence on which any finding of fact is based, such finding will not be disturbed on appeal. (Weeter Lumber Co. v. Fales, 20 Ida. 255, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 403, 118 Pac. 289; Blackfoot State Bank v. Crisler, 20 Ida. 379, 118 Pac. 775; Friedrich v. Donahue, 20 Ida. 92, 116 Pac. 1029; Thomason v. Lane-Potter Lumber Co., 20 Ida. 771, 119 Pac. 875; Coe v. McGran, 23 Ida. 582, 131 Pac. 1110; Griffith v. Griffith (Wash.), 133 Pae. 443.)

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, J.
This action was brought by the appellant to obtain a divorce from the defendant. The action was tried by the court and findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment entered in favor of the defendant. The appeal is from the judgment.
The only error assigned is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. Upon a careful examination of the evidence we find there is a substantial conflict upon all of the material issues made by the pleadings. That being true, under the well-established rule of this court, the findings and judgment must be affirmed. (Friedrich v. Donahue, 20 Ida. 92, 116 Pac. 1029; Weeter Lumber Co. v. Fales, 20 Ida. 255, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 403, 118 Pac. 289; Blackfoot State Bank v. Crisler, 20 Ida. 379, 118 Pac. 775; Thomason v. Lane-Potter Lumber Co., 20 Ida. 771, 119 Pac. 875; Coe v. McGran, 23 Ida. 582, 131 Pac. 1110; Griffith v. Griffith (Wash.), 133 Pac. 443.)
The judgment must therefore be affirmed and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the appellant.
Ailshie, C. J., and Stewart, J., concur.