Bothwell v. Bryant, 210 P. 1003 (Idaho 1922). · Go Syfert
Bothwell v. Bryant, 210 P. 1003 (Idaho 1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Zazzali v. Minert (deb, 2011-12-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zazzali v. Minert
Bankr. D. Del. · 2011 · confidence medium
It follows as a necessary conclusion that the agent must not put himself in such a relationship that his interests become antagonistic to those of his principal.’”) (quoting Jensen v. Sidney Stevens Implement Co., 36 Idaho 348 , 210 P. 1003, 1005 (1922)); Mallory v. Watt, 100 Idaho 119 , 594 P.2d 629, 632 (1979) (“[W]hen an agent represents interests adverse to those of his principal ... the potential for a breach of an agent’s general duty of good faith is high”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Dbsi, Inc.
Bankr. D. Del. · 2011 · confidence medium
It follows as a necessary conclusion that the agent must not put himself in such a relationship that his interests become antagonistic to those of his principal.'") (quoting Jensen v. Sidney Stevens Implement Co., 36 Idaho 348 , 210 P. 1003, 1005 (1922)); Mallory v. Watt, 100 Idaho 119 , 594 P.2d 629, 632 (1979) ("[W]hen an agent represents interests adverse to those of his principal ... the potential for a breach of *675 an agent's general duty of good faith is high").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R Homes Corp. v. Herr
Idaho Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
In Jensen v. Sidney Stevens Implement Co., 36 Idaho 348, 353 , 210 P. 1003, 1005 (1922), the Court found the following jury instruction to be a correct statement of Idaho law: Loyalty to his trust is the first duty which an agent owes to his principal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R Homes Corp. v. Herr
Idaho Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
In Jensen v. Sidney Stevens Implement Co., 36 Idaho 348, 353 , 210 P. 1003, 1005 (1922), the Court found the following jury instruction to be a correct statement of Idaho law: Loyalty to his trust is the first duty which an agent owes to his principal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. Edwards
Idaho Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
“Fidelity in the agent is what is aimed at, and as a means of securing it the law will not permit the agent to place himself in a situation in which he may be tempted by his own private interest to disregard that of his principal.” Jensen v. Sidney Stevens Implement Co., 36 Idaho 348, 353 , 210 P. 1003, 1005 (1922).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RG NELSON, AIA v. Steer (2×)
Idaho · 1990 · confidence medium
It demands that the agent shall work with an eye single to the interest of his principal. 36 Idaho at 353 , 210 P. at 1005 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harrington v. High
Mont. · 1924 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Jensen v. Sidney Stevens Implement Co., 36 Ida. 348 , 210 Pac. 1003 ; Green v. Peeso, 92 Iowa, 261 , 60 N. W. 531 ; Webb v. Marks, 10 Colo. App. 429 , 51 Pac. 518 ; 1 Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, 14th ed., sec. 438; 2 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, 4th ed., sec. 959.) Applying the above well-established principle to the facts shown in this record, we conclude that the burden was on respondents to show that an adequate consideration was paid, and that no unfair means were used to bring about the delivery of the deed to them, and that they did not sustain this burden.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GLENN R. BOTHWELL, Trustee
v.
C. E. BRYANT and JANE DOE BRYANT
Idaho Supreme Court.
Dec 1, 1922.
210 P. 1003
McDougall & McDougall, for Appellants., Budge & Merrill and Martineau & Evans, for Respondent.
Budge, Dunn, Lee, McCarthy, Nor, Rice, Themselves.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
MCCARTHY, J.

This action was brought to foreclose the rights of appellant Bryant under a Carey Act contract, with the American Falls Canal and Power Company. On September 24, 1908, the company conveyed to appellant C. E. Bryant by warranty deed 120 shares of water stock, for which Bryant was to pay $1,800. The deed acknowledged the receipt of the first payment of $360, and provided for the payment of the balance in nine yearly instalments. Bryant made only the first payment. A paragraph of the deed gave the company “any rights of way through the land described .... needed for the construction of the canal or any lateral.”

Bryant built a lateral on his lands, and received and used water from the company’s canal from the execution of the deed until the institution of this action, June 2, 1917. At this time Glenn R. Bothwell, the respondent, was the duly elected and acting trustee in bankruptcy, the company having been adjudicated a bankrupt in February,[*339] 1914. In the spring of 1917 it became necessary to enlarge and improve the lateral on appellant’s land in order to carry water to farmers below him who had purchased water rights under the canal system and planted crops in anticipation of the water. Appellant refused to permit the enlargement of his lateral and suit was brought to enforce the provision of the deed allowing the company to do so, also to foreclose the lien on appellant’s land and water.

Numerous assignments of error are made in appellant’s brief, but not argued. The only one which it is necessary for us to notice is the contention that plaintiff made no showing of compliance with the rules of the land board prescribed under the - Carey Act. This point is raised for the first time in this court. The rules of the land board in effect at the time are not shown by the record. If this court were to consider such a point raised here for the first time, the rules would have to be before it for interpretation. "What the rules of the land board were through the years covered by the facts in this case, this court does not know. It cannot take judicial notice of them. (C. S., sec. 7933.)

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Rice, *C. J., and Dunn, J., concur. Budge and Lee, JJ., deeming themselves disqualified, did not sit at the hearing nor participate in the decision.