Legal Opinion

Smith v. Marley

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliam A. Lee, J.

This is an action to recover a balance upon three title-retaining notes. The pleading on behalf of appellants is entitled “Answer and Cross-complaint. ’ ’ It admits, 'by failing to deny, all of the allegations of the complaint, and the defense is in the nature of a confession and avoidance, under C. S., sec. 6694, which provides that the answer shall contain: “1. A general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant. 2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim,” etc.

The answer, in effect, admits the execution of the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pocatello Security Trust Co. v. HenryIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Marshall v. GilsterIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Keane v. Pittsburg Lead Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Hopkins v. DipertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
  5. McDonald v. American Mortgage Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1889

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Boise City v. Better Homes, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Griffin v. ClarkIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Hendrix v. City of Twin FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Hobson v. Security State BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Shaw Supply Co., Inc. v. MorganIdaho Supreme Court · 1929

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API