Case Name: SAMUEL HARVEY, KNUTE ROSDAL and ALBERT PETERSON, Respondents, v. THEODORE BRETT, Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1922-09-02
Citations: 36 Idaho 126
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAMUEL HARVEY, KNUTE ROSDAL and ALBERT PETERSON, Respondents, v. THEODORE BRETT, Appellant.
Judges: Eice, C. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
(September 2, 1922.)
SAMUEL HARVEY, KNUTE ROSDAL and ALBERT PETERSON, Respondents, v. THEODORE BRETT, Appellant.
[209 Pac. 209.]
Mining Claim- — Annual Labor — -Findings or Trial Court — Evidence. If there is a conflict in the evidence and there is evidence in the record which, if uneontradicted, would support the judgment, it must he affirmed on appeal.
APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, for Shoshone County. Hon. Wm. W. Woods, Judge.
Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs.
'Affirmed.
James A. Wayne, for Appellant.
When the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict or finding, or such verdict or finding is plainly contrary to the decided weight of evidence, a judgment based upon such verdict or finding will be reversed. (Hawkins v. Pocatello Water Co., 3 Ida. 766, 35 Pac. 711; Commercial Bank v. Lieuallen, 5 Ida. 47, 46 Pae. 1020; Idaho Merc. Co. v. Kalanquin, 8 Ida. 101, 66 Pac. 33; Watson v. Molden, 10 Ida. 578, 79 Pae. 503; Quayle v. Beam, 15 Ida. 666, 99 Pac. 707; Lanib v. Licey, 16 Ida. 664, 102 Pae. 378; Bippetoe v. Feely, 20 Ida. 619, 119 Pae. 465; Goldstone v. Bustemeyer, 21 Ida. 703, 123 Pac. 635; Breshears v. Callender, 23 Ida. 348, 131 Pae. 15.)
Isham N. Smith, for Respondents.
The findings which are supported by substantial evidence are conclusive on appeal. {Cons. Interstate Callaham- Min. Co. v. Morton, 32 Ida. 671, 187 Pac. 791.)

Opinion:
DUNN, J.
This action to quiet title to Permit No. 1 and Permit No. 2 lode claims was brought by respondents in support of an adverse claim filed in the Coeur d'Alene land office against the application of appellant for patent for the U. S. and Daucher lode claims. Judgment went for respondents, from which appeal was taken.
In the trial court the sole issue to be determined was whether the annual labor required by law was actually performed on the U. S. and Daucher claims for-the year 1913. The trial judge found that such annual labor was not performed, and the sole question for this court to determine is whether such finding is supported by substantial evidence:
An examination of the record shows a conflict, with substantial evidence to support said finding. In this situation the judgment will not be disturbed. (Fritcher v. Kelly, 34 Ida. 471, 201 Pac. 1037.) Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents.
Eice, C. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.