From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bedford v. Gem Irr. Dist

Supreme Court of Idaho
Sep 26, 1931
4 P.2d 366 (Idaho 1931)

Opinion

No. 5705.

September 26, 1931.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Owyhee County. Hon. Dana E. Brinck, Judge.

Motion in re diminution of the record. Motion denied.

S. Ben Dunlap and Walter Griffiths, for Respondent.

Earl E. Garrity and Scatterday Stone, for Appellants.


Respondent seeks diminution of the record to supply an agreement made between the parties subsequent to the trial, appeal and preparation of the transcript, which agreement respondent contends has disposed of one of the issues on appeal, rendering the same moot.

Diminution of the record is to supply something omitted which should have been in the transcript, or correct an error, not to supply new matter which could, or should not have been in the transcript. ( Newby v. City of St. Anthony, 48 Idaho 608, 284 Pac. 1028; Rule 29, Supreme Court, in effect Aug. 25, 1926.)

If an issue in an appeal has become moot since the appeal was taken, the proper procedure is to move to dismiss, and upon such motion the court may consider evidence outside the original record. ( Abels v. Turner Trust Co., 31 Idaho 777, 176 Pac. 884.)

Motion for diminution of the record denied.

Budge, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bedford v. Gem Irr. Dist

Supreme Court of Idaho
Sep 26, 1931
4 P.2d 366 (Idaho 1931)
Case details for

Bedford v. Gem Irr. Dist

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST BEDFORD, an Incompetent, by S. BEN DUNLAP, His Guardian ad Litem…

Court:Supreme Court of Idaho

Date published: Sep 26, 1931

Citations

4 P.2d 366 (Idaho 1931)
4 P.2d 366

Citing Cases

Owen v. Taylor

" (Approved and followed in Douglas v. Kenney, 40 Idaho 412, 418, 233 P. 874. See also: Bedford v. Gem…

Henderson v. Nixon

The motion for augmentation is allowed since it supplies a record of what actually happened which could have…