bona fide claim in Idaho

1987Idaho Code § 6-405 provides in some detail that "any person having a bona fide claim to the possession, title of, or interest in, any real property or mining claim ... and it is necessary for the ascertainment, enforcement or protection of such rights or interest, that an examination or survey of such property be had ... the party desiring the same may apply to the court or the judge there of ... for an order for such examination and survey... ." Significantly, the case of Norrie v. Fleming, supra , is set out in the annotation to the first section of the chapter entitled Quieting Title, for t

1987Idaho Code § 6-405 provides in some detail that "any person having a bona fide claim to the possession, title of, or interest in, any real property or mining claim ... and it is necessary for the ascertainment, enforcement or protection of such rights or interest, that an examination or survey of such property be had ... the party desiring the same may apply to the court or the judge there of ... for an order for such examination and survey... ." Significantly, the case of Norrie v. Fleming, supra , is set out in the annotation to the first section of the chapter entitled Quieting Title, for t

1987In Lewiston Lime Co. v. Barney, 87 Idaho 462 , 394 P.2d 323 (1964), Justice McFadden writing for a unanimous court, upheld as against a contention that a previous decree was not res judicata to the action before the court, that it was res judicata because " the decree in case no. 5769 (the provisions action) also contained the metes and bounds description of the claim.

1987In Lewiston Lime Co. v. Barney, 87 Idaho 462 , 394 P.2d 323 (1964), Justice McFadden writing for a unanimous court, upheld as against a contention that a previous decree was not res judicata to the action before the court, that it was res judicata because " the decree in case no. 5769 (the provisions action) also contained the metes and bounds description of the claim.

1979The trial court gave a reasoned statement for not awarding attorney fees: “[A]nd the Court being of the opinion that attorney’s fees should only be awarded against the unsuccessful litigant when a defense or claim is offered in bad faith or to delay or hinder justice or in other circumstances indicative of bad faith, and the Court being satisfied that Defendants’ defense was a bona fide defense and the Court having considered evidence of both counsel, “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the costs other than attorney’s fees in the amount of $475.15 are allowed.” See Minich v. Gem State Developers, In

1979The trial court gave a reasoned statement for not awarding attorney fees: “[A]nd the Court being of the opinion that attorney’s fees should only be awarded against the unsuccessful litigant when a defense or claim is offered in bad faith or to delay or hinder justice or in other circumstances indicative of bad faith, and the Court being satisfied that Defendants’ defense was a bona fide defense and the Court having considered evidence of both counsel, “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the costs other than attorney’s fees in the amount of $475.15 are allowed.” See Minich v. Gem State Developers, In

1965Co., 160 Kan. 472 , 163 P.2d 389 (1945).

1965Co., 160 Kan. 472 , 163 P.2d 389 (1945).

1910Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Co., 9 Mont. 288 , 23 Pac. 510 , 152 U. S. 160 , 14 Sup. Ct. 506, 38 L. ed. 398; 2 Lindley on Mines, sec. 873; Costigan on Mining Law, sec. 148; Barringer & Adams on the Law of Mines and Mining, p. 739.) Our attention has not been called to any case, and we have been unable to find any in which a court has held that either in the exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction, or by virtue of the powers conferred under similar statutes, relief should be granted to an applicant in the absence of a showing that the applicant had a bona fide claim to the poss

1910Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Co., 9 Mont. 288 , 23 Pac. 510 , 152 U. S. 160 , 14 Sup. Ct. 506, 38 L. ed. 398; 2 Lindley on Mines, sec. 873; Costigan on Mining Law, sec. 148; Barringer & Adams on the Law of Mines and Mining, p. 739.) Our attention has not been called to any case, and we have been unable to find any in which a court has held that either in the exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction, or by virtue of the powers conferred under similar statutes, relief should be granted to an applicant in the absence of a showing that the applicant had a bona fide claim to the poss

1897Honeyman v. Jarvis, 79 Ill. 318 .