Case Name: DAVIS v. ELMORE COUNTY
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1904-03-01
Citations: 9 Idaho 764
Docket Number: 
Parties: DAVIS v. ELMORE COUNTY.
Judges: Stockslager and Ailshie, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
(March 1, 1904.)
DAVIS v. ELMORE COUNTY.
[75 Pac. 910.]
¡Appeal from an Order of the Board of County Commissioners— Motion to Dismiss Appeal — Undertaking on Appeal — Required When.
1. An appellant, from an order of a board of county commissioners, must file an undertaking on appeal as required by statute when the appeal is not taken for the purpose of protecting the interests of the county and people. If he does not do so his appeal is ineffectual for any purpose and will be dismissed on motion.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from the District Court of Elmore County. Honorable Lyttleton Price, Judge.
Appeal from an order of the board of county commissioners refusing to allow personal claims of appellant. Judgment for county.
Affirmed.
E. M. Wolfe, for Appellant,
cites no authorities on the only point decided by the court.
W. C. Howie, for Respondent,
cites no authorities in his brief upon the point decided.

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, C. J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Elmore county on an appeal from an order of the board of county commissioners disallowing appellant's claims for services as road contractor for road district No. 4 of said county for the quarters ending April 1 and July 1, 1903. A motion is made by counsel for respondent to dismiss the appeal on three several grounds, the second of which is that no undertaking on appeal was filed as required by the statute in such cases. It is contended by counsel for appellant that under the provisions of section 1777, and acts amendatory thereof of the Revised Statutes, no undertaking is required to be given by the appellant in this case. That part of said section referring to the point in controversy is as follows: "When the appeal is made for the purpose of protecting the interests of the county and of the people, no requirement shall be made of the appellant for security of costs, except that when the district judge shall be of the opinion that such appeal is not made in good faith," etc.
It is contended that this court construed said provision in the case of Ravenscraft v. Board of County Commrs., 5 Idaho, 178, 47 Pac. 942, in accordance with the view above expressed by counsel for appellant. That was an appeal by a taxpayer to protect the interests of the people, and comes clearly within the provisions of said sections above quoted, while the ease at bar is an appeal, by a private person to protect his own interests, from an order disallowing his personal claims. This appeal was not taken "for the purpose of protecting the interests of the county and of the people," hut was for the purpose of protecting appellant's individual rights. The provisions of said section are too plain to require construction, and do not exempt the appellant from filing an undertaking for costs on appeal. He having failed to file such undertaking, the motion to dismiss must he granted, and it is so ordered. Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent.
Stockslager and Ailshie, JJ., concur.