Schenk v. Birdseye , 2 Idaho 141 ( 1885 )

Per CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered against the defendant, Joseph W. Birdseye, in Lemhi county. The record brought here shows that the cause was heard and evidence taken in open court, and that, by agreement of parties, the cause was taken under advisement, to be decided in vacation; and that it was so determined, and the findings and judgment signed by the trial judge were filed and entered by the clerk. This is now claimed to be error. We think section 29 of our Civil Practice Act fully authorizes this proceeding. Counsel for appellant contends that the complaint is not sufficient to support the judgment. The action is founded on a judgment recovered against this defendant in the city court of Brooklyn, in the state of New York. As appears from the complaint herein, the judgment sued on was joint as to Birdseye and others, and several or personal as to Birdseye. The complaint alleges that Birdseye had been personally served by summons in the city of Brooklyn, and that he appeared in the action by counsel and that, thereafter, judgment was duly given. It is also alleged that the city court of Brooklyn was a court of record, and that, under the constitution and laws of the state of New York, it had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. This seems to us sufficient in this respect; and, as there is no bill of exception or statement, there is no other question for consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

Morgan, C. J., and Broderick and Buck, JJ., concurring.