# Helgeson Ex Rel. Helgeson v. Powell

> Idaho Supreme Court · July 12, 1934 · 54 Idaho 667

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3411091

## Case

- **Full name:** GUDRUN HELGESON and COLLEEN HELGESON, a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem GUDRUN HELGESON, Appellants, v. GRANT POWELL, as Policeman of the City of St. Anthony, Idaho; JESSE H. JACKSON, as Deputy Sheriff of Fremont County, Idaho; NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, a Corporation; STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation; J. A. FREDRICKSON, as Sheriff of Fremont County, Idaho; And P. S. WILCOX, GUS A. ISENBURG, E. D. DUKE, THOMAS B. HARGIS, DAN THOMAS, EDGAR M. CHAPMAN, JOSEPH ANDRASEN, TED BUTLER, W. G. JONES and GEORGE A. BROWNING, Jr., Respondents
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 12, 1934
- **Citations:** 54 Idaho 667; 34 P.2d 957; 1934 Ida. LEXIS 57
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Givens
- **Judges:** Givens, Wernette, Holden, Budge, Morgan
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3411091

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under this Court’s statutory construction, “it has the same force and effect, by implication, as if it expressly contained the provision, ‘Whenever the wrongful act would have entitled the person injured to maintain an action if death had not ensued.’ ”

## Opinion text

GIVENS, J.,
Concurring Specially. — I concur in the conclusion reached, but not in the portion of the opinion over
*690
ruling
Haffner v. United States F. & G. Co.,
35 Ida. 517 , 207 Pac. 715 , and
Federal Reserve Bank v. Smith,
42 Ida. 224 , 244 Pac. 1102 , because I think those cases are distinguishable from the situation herein and capable of being harmonized thus:
Haffner v. United States F. & G. Co., supra,
considered venue not liability, and while “virtue” and “color” are contrasted, no decisive holding was necessary or made therein as to liability, only as to a cause of action coming under section 5MD2, I. C. A., formerly section 6662, I. C. S., 1919.
In
Federal Reserve Bank v. Smith, swpra,
the court said:
“ ‘It is only such acts of a sheriff as are done under color of office, involving an abuse, as distinguished from a usurpation, of authority, that render his bondsmen liable,’ ” and here there was such abuse as to render the bondsmen liable and such holding, would not, it seems to me, be out of line with the holding in
Federal Reserve Bank v. Smith, supra.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3411091. Public record. Not legal advice.