Tuttle v. Hardenberg
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District, Dawson County. Action on an indemnity bond. Judgment was rendered for the defendants by Milburn, J. Statement of the case by the justice delivering the opinion: This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of defendants upon sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's complaint. The question, therefore, before this court is whether the complaint stated a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District, Dawson County. Action on an indemnity bond. Judgment was rendered for the defendants by Milburn, J. Statement of the case by the justice delivering the opinion: This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of defendants upon sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's complaint. The question, therefore, before this court is whether the complaint stated a cause of action. The following facts appear in that pleading: The plaintiff was sheriff of Dawson county in 1888. On September 20, 1888, an action was commenced by P. R. L. Hardenberg (defendant here)…
1Opinion of the CourtDe Witt, J.
— We are of opinion that this complaint states a cause of action. The objections to this pleading, urged by respondent’s counsel, are based upon their claim that Sheriff Tuttle had no right, under the law, to turn over the attached hay to his successor, Sheriff Gleason, but should have retained the possession himself. But whether that were the sheriff’s duty or not under our statutes (Comp. Stats., div. 5, §§ 857, 858), we do not think is material to this case. As it appeared by final results, the seizure of the hay was wholly wrongful. In the action in which the attachment was issued…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Scott v. WaggonerMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Reynolds v. FitzpatrickMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- De Celles v. CaseyMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Interstate National Bank v. McCormickMontana Supreme Court · 1923
- Sorensen v. JacobsonMontana Supreme Court · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.