Case Name: MARTHA SHAWVER, Appellant, v. ALBERT O. SHAWVER and LEROY A. SHAWVER, Respondents
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1913-11-03
Citations: 25 Idaho 70
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARTHA SHAWVER, Appellant, v. ALBERT O. SHAWVER and LEROY A. SHAWVER, Respondents.
Judges: Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
(November 3, 1913.)
MARTHA SHAWVER, Appellant, v. ALBERT O. SHAWVER and LEROY A. SHAWVER, Respondents.
[136 Pac. 436.]
Findings — Immaterial Issues.
1. Evidence examined in this case and held sufficient to support findings.
2. It is not neeessary for a trial court to mate findings on collateral or immaterial issues where a finding either for or against the losing party could not change the judgment.
3. Reid, that the findings in this case support the judgment.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.
Suit for divorce. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
C. H. Edwards, for Appellant.
The judgment is against the law, first because the court did not find on all the material issues raised by the pleadings and upon which evidence was introduced; second, because the plaintiff proved her ease by unimpeached and uncontradicted testimony and by a preponderance of the evidence, and had a legal right to a decree of divorce. (Sandstrom v. Smith, 12 Ida. 446, 86 Pac. 416; Franklin v. Franklin, 140 Cal. 607, 74 Pac. 155; Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Cal. 375.)
The court is compelled to grant a decree when the plaintiff has proved her ease by a preponderance of the evidence. (Wald v. Wald, 119 Mo. App. 341, 96 S. W. 302; Raney v. Raney, 128 Mo. App. 167, 106 S. W. 577; Orton v. Orton, 159 Mich. 236, 134 Am. St. 716, 123 N. W. 1103, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 276; Spitsnaugle v. Spitsnaugle, 87 Kan. 408, 124 Pac. 162; Locke v. Locke, 152 Cal. 56, 94 Pac. 244; Decker v. Decker, '56 Or. 381, 108 Pac. 777.),
Karl Paine, for Respondents.
Had the court granted the appellant a divorce, the issue presented by the pleadings with reference to her right to have the respondent’s property subjected to the payment thereof would have required a finding; but the decision of the court being that the appellant was not entitled to a divorce, a finding as to the status of the property was wholly immaterial and could not affect the judgment. (State v. Baird, 13 Ida. 126, 134, 89 Pae. 298; Brown v. Macey, 13 Ida. 451, 90 Pac. 339; Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Ida. 221, 96 Pac. 936; Mine etc. Co. v. Idaho etc. Mines Co., 20 Ida. 300, 118 Pac. 301.)

Opinion:
AILSHIE, C. J.
In this case the evidence is sufficient to support the findings. The findings in turn substantially comply with the requirements of the statute and cover all the material issues. (Sandstrom v. Smith, 12 Ida. 446, 86 Pac. 416; Brown v. Macey, 13 Ida. 451, 90 Pac. 339.) It was not necessary for the court to make findings on immaterial or collateral issues, or on any issue where a finding either way could not have affected or changed the judgment that was entered in the ease. (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Ida. 190, 85 Pac. 490; State v. Baird, 13 Ida. 126, 89 Pac. 298.)
The findings in this case are sufficient to support the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered. No costs awarded.
Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.