Case Name: CHARLES H. STRICKFADDEN and AUBRA STRICKFADDEN, Respondents, v. GREENCREEK HIGHWAY DISTRICT, Defendant, and FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Appellant
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1927-10-11
Citations: 44 Idaho 751
Docket Number: No. 5006
Parties: CHARLES H. STRICKFADDEN and AUBRA STRICKFADDEN, Respondents, v. GREENCREEK HIGHWAY DISTRICT, Defendant, and FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 751–755

Head Matter:
(No. 5006.
October 11, 1927.)
CHARLES H. STRICKFADDEN and AUBRA STRICKFADDEN, Respondents, v. GREENCREEK HIGHWAY DISTRICT, Defendant, and FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Corporation, Appellant.
[260 Pac. 431.]
J. F. Ailshie and A. S. Hardy, for Bespondents.
F. E. Fogg and Williams & Cornelius, for Appellant.
F. E. Fogg and H. Taylor, for Defendant Highway District.

Opinion:
GIVENS, J.
Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was not signed by a resident agent and that the surety company, under C. S., sec. 5108, was disqualified as such because it had failed to pay a judgment.
Appellant contends that the exceptions, not having been taken within twenty days of the filing of the first bonds, came too late. (C. S., see. 7544.) Such section applies only to insufficient or defective bonds, a distinction having been made by this court between such and void bonds. (Spokane C. L. Co. v. Crane Creek S. Co., 36 Ida. 786, 213 Pac. 699; Farnworth v. Viet, 39 Ida. 40, 225 Pac. 1023.)
Appellant also contends that the motion may not, under rule 48, be considered because not filed at least one day before the argument. This rule, by the exception therein contained, does not apply to jurisdictional matters (Brockman v. Hall, 37 Ida. 564, 218 Pac. 188), and the point that a bond is void is jurisdictional. (C. S., sec. 7153.)
A bond must be signed by a resident agent and, when objection is made on the ground that it is not so signed, the duty devolves upon appellant to show proof of authority. (Gonzaga University v. Masini, ante, p. 113, 255 Pac. 413.) The only authority appellant has shown that a resident agent signed is a copy of a purported authority of the agent to sign as a resident agent for appellant, which the certifying officer, Henry Telcher, clerk of the district court in which the action was tried, states was by such purported agent exhibited to him, but not that the same was on file in his office. We are impressed with appellant's statement on page 14 of their memorandum on respondents' motion to dismiss, that a clerk only has authority to certify records in his office. (11 C. J., p. 887.) The authority of the agent to sign having been questioned, the burden was on appellant to justify. (Gonzaga University v. Masini, supra.) Not having met such burden, the record does not show a valid bond. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed, and costs awarded to respondent. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider and pass upon the other point urged by respondent.
(November 3, 1927.)
Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur.
Wm. E'. Lee, O. J., dissents.