Radermacher v. Sutphen

10 Citing cases

  1. Radermacher v. Daniels

    64 Idaho 376 (Idaho 1943)   Cited 9 times

    Defendants also alleged that the sale was made by the Twin Falls Commission Company, Inc., and that the corporation had long since been dissolved; that the defendants, M.M. Daniels and F.C. Erwin, were co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of Twin Falls Commission Company. Trial was had and judgment was entered for the plaintiff as prayed for by his complaint, and defendants have appealed. The case out of which this action ultimately arose ( Radermacher v. Radermacher) has a long and varied history and has found its way to this court a number of times: Radermacher v. Radermacher, 59 Idaho 716, 87 P.2d 461; Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070; Radermacher v. Radermacher, 61 Idaho 261, 100 P.2d 955; Radermacher v. Eckert, 63 Idaho 531, 123 P.2d 426. The facts material to the consideration of the present case are as follows: By decree of District Court, September 3, 1937, entered in the case of "Henry J. Radermacher, Plaintiff, v. Freda M. Radermacher, Defendant", ( 59 Idaho 716) defendant was awarded the community personal property consisting of "not less than 52 head of cows, together with their 1937 calves, . . . . also not less than 25 head of horses."

  2. Radermacher v. Radermacher

    61 Idaho 261 (Idaho 1940)   Cited 23 times
    In Radermacher v. Radermacher, 61 Idaho 261, 273-74, 100 P.2d 955, 961 (1940), the Court said that a judge "is without power to award the separate property of the husband to the wife, either permanently or temporarily.

    ( Radermacher v. Radermacher, 59 Idaho 716, 87 P.2d 461.) A further hearing in the district court resulted in an amended decree, a copy of which appears in a concurring and dissenting opinion in Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1073, reference to which is made in order to avoid copying it here. Appellant complains that the amended decree is contrary to the law of the case, established on the former appeal; that the court erred in decreeing to respondent the use of the separate property of appellant and of the community property of appellant and respondent; also in decreeing to respondent the custody and control of the minor children; that the decree violates Idaho Code Annotated, sections 31-902, 31-906, 31-913 and 31-1007; that the court abused its discretion by fixing the amount of the monthly, separate maintenance payments at sums in excess of the total income of appellant; that the court erred in ratifying, confirming and approving respondent's void acts done pursuant to the decree which was reversed on the former appeal.

  3. Lenaghen v. Smith

    97 Idaho 383 (Idaho 1976)

    Equally obvious is that if appeal presents a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, the issuance of the extraordinary writ sought in district court would be in error. Felton v. Prather, 95 Idaho 280, 506 P.2d 1353 (1973); Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070 (1939). We therefore deem that an appeal from the Commission's original order does lie in this Court.

  4. Felton v. Prather

    506 P.2d 1353 (Idaho 1973)   Cited 8 times

    Mandamus will not be permitted to supplant the function of an appeal or a writ of review. Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070 (1939). Plaintiff's position regarding prompt entry of judgment is patently untenable because plaintiff herself blocked prompt entry of judgment in Felton v. Drainage District #1 by failing to comply with the court's orders regarding selection of a surveyor.

  5. White v. Young

    88 Idaho 188 (Idaho 1964)   Cited 5 times

    This is fatal to the petition. Pond v. Babcock, 50 Idaho 400, 296 P. 596; Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Mayhew, 5 Idaho 572, 51 P. 411; Newman v. District Court, 32 Idaho 607, 610, 186 P. 922; Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070. SMITH, Justice.

  6. Leuhrs v. Spaulding

    328 P.2d 582 (Idaho 1958)   Cited 5 times

    55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 51, pp. 87-88; Lewis v. Mountain Home Coop. Irr. Co., 28 Idaho 682, 156 P. 419; In re Brooks, 1925, 40 Idaho 432, 233 P. 514; Aker v. Aker, 1932, 51 Idaho 555, 8 P.2d 777. Mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act; it lies only to compel a ministerial or administrative act. 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 63, p. 100; Logan v. Carter, 1930, 49 Idaho 393, 288 P. 424; Murtaugh Highway District v. Merritt, 1938, 59 Idaho 603, 85 P.2d 685; Radermacher v. Sutphen, 1939, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070. Superintendent of Banks, in granting or denying application to open branch bank, is not limited to purely local considerations, but may consider questions of state-wide policy.

  7. Robbins v. Joint Class A. School Dist. No. 331

    244 P.2d 1104 (Idaho 1952)   Cited 8 times

    The respondents invoked the wrong remedy in this case; mandamus will not lie to review a ruling of an inferior tribunal; the remedy is by writ of error or review. Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070; Board of Commissioners v. Mayhew, 5 Idaho 572, 51 P. 411; Connolly v. Woods, 13 Idaho 591, 92 P. 573. The statute under consideration violates constitution of Idaho Art. 7, Sec. 5, and Art. 9, Sec. 1. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai County, 9 Cir., 270 F. 369; Idaho County v. Fenn Highway District, 43 Idaho 233, 253 P. 377.

  8. O'Brien v. O'Brien

    233 P.2d 1030 (Idaho 1951)   Cited 3 times

    Mandamus will not lie to correct an error of law. It cannot be used to control judicial discretion or to correct or reverse an erroneous ruling. Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 92 P.2d 1070. GIVENS, Chief Justice.

  9. Application of Kaufman

    69 Idaho 297 (Idaho 1949)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the process of admitting persons to the bar, fixing standards for admission, and determining whether an applicant meets the requisite standards is a judicial function that is inherent in the courts

    ction amicus curiae seeks to make between the fixing of standards and determination of an applicant's compliance therewith as ministerial acts and merely ascertaining that the applicant gives the documentary or oral proof that he possesses evidence of compliance furnished by school or university and the order thereon, the administering the oath and signing the roll of attorneys as the real judicial functions, while labored, in the dissent in Re Application for License to Practice Law, 67 W. Va. 213, 67 S.E. 597, at page 604, the underlying California cases distinguished in Re Cate, Cal.App. 1928, 270 P. 968, at page 984, is only a minority discussion and such case holds that the first is a prerequisite to the second; and to hold the first is ministerial and latter alone judicial is to mistake form for substance and is contrary to the declared conception of what the judicial function comprises in the admission to the bar. The exercise of judgment or discretion is not a ministerial act, Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, at page 533, 92 P.2d 1070, and the determination. In re Weinstein, 150 Ore. 1, 42 P.2d 744.

  10. Pilliner v. Pilliner

    133 P.2d 735 (Idaho 1943)   Cited 4 times

    There is some difference or, at least, uncertainty, as to just how or why plaintiff came to withdraw from his home and take up his residence in the trailer close by the residence; but the fact remains that he did do so and continued to live separate and apart from his wife. It was his home; he was head of the family and had a right to reside there, if he desired to do so. After all, his leaving was of his own choosing. It was proper for the court, under these circumstances, to order the plaintiff to provide maintenance for the wife, while he leaves their bed and board thus. ( Simonton v. Simonton, 33 Idaho 255, 262, 193 P. 386, 388; Sauvageau v. Sauvageau, 59 Idaho 190, 194, 81 P.2d 731; Radermacher v. Radermacher, 61 Idaho 261, 268, 100 P.2d 955; Radermacher v. Sutphen, 60 Idaho 529, 531, 92 P.2d 1070; Stephens v. Stephens, 53 Idaho 427, 436, 24 P.2d 52; Benson v. District Court, 57 Idaho 85, 92, 62 P.2d 108; Vollmer v. Vollmer, 47 Idaho 135, 147, 273 P. 1.) The court found plaintiff guilty of desertion of his wife and ordered: