Case Name: JESSE H. NIELSON and C. E. CRIDDLE, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Appellants
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1925-03-02
Citations: 40 Idaho 481
Docket Number: 
Parties: JESSE H. NIELSON and C. E. CRIDDLE, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Appellants.
Judges: 'Win. E. Lee and Taylor, vFJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 481–485

Head Matter:
(March 2, 1925.)
JESSE H. NIELSON and C. E. CRIDDLE, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Appellants.
[234 Pac. 686.]
Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Extension or Time to Pile Transcript.
Under sufficient showing, though extension of time to file transcript was not secured, appeal will not be dismissed.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, for Bonneville County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.
Motions to dismiss appeals.
Denied.
Otto E. McOutcheon, for Appellant.
What the court really has decided in the cases generally cited in support of motions to dismiss on this ground is that the failure to apply for extension of time to file transcript under Rule 28, if reasonably justified by appellant’s showing, will be excused. (Iowa, State Savings Bank v. Twomey, 31 Ida. 683, 175 Pac. 812; Woodmansee c& Webster Co. v. Wood-mansee, 31 Ida. 747, 176 Pac. 148; Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 35 Ida. 436, 206 Pac. 807; Intermoumtaim Assn., etc., v. Bexburg Farmers’ Society, etc., 38 Ida. 121, 220 Pae. 114.)
In Parkinson v. Winzler, 36 Ida. 449, 210 Pac. 738, the court said: “Appellant has shown no satisfactory reason why within the ninety-day period an order extending the time was not obtained from this court.”
Appellant in this case is confident that the showing made in opposition to the motion to dismiss presents a satisfactory reason for the failure to file the transcript and the like failure to apply for an extension of time within which to file the transcript.
C. E. Crowley and Holden & Mote, for Respondents,
file no brief.

Opinion:
GIVENS, J.
Respondents move to dismiss three appeals, different only as to parties respondent, on the ground that the transcripts were not filed within the time. provided by Rule 26 of this court and no extensions were secured. Appellants admit the above facts but claim there was excusable neglect in that the court reporter had been unavoidably delayed in getting out the transcripts but had advised counsel that he hoped to get them out before the time limit; that Otto E. McOutcheon, counsel for appellants, had a case before the circuit court of appeals in California and in order to make his appearance there was compelled to leave Oct. 27th, the time for filing the transcripts expiring Oct. 20th, and he told his stenographer to give O. E. McCntcheon, his assistant, the following note of instructions:
"Transcripts for County Cases to Sup. Court are due 10/20. If they come proper copies should be served on Holden & Mote (2 cases) and Crowley (1 case). Get extensions. ' '
That by the last two words he meant to direct that extensions be secured from the court but that his assistant misunderstood and did not do so.
This court has never held that failure to obtain an extension of time is conclusive and absolute proof of negligence which cannot be rebutted. (California Gulch P. Min. Co. v. Patrick, 37 Ida. 661, 218 Pac. 378, and cases cited.)
It does not appear that the appellants were in any way responsible for the delay in the preparation of the reporter's transcripts, which have not yet been completed; therefore, appellants' failure to secure the extension of time has in no way prejudiced respondents nor has it delayed the completion and filing of the record. The securing of an extension would not have expedited the appeals in any way.
Motion denied.
'Win. E. Lee and Taylor, vFJ., concur.
Budge, J., sat at the hearing but took no part in the decision.