National Ro-Tile Corporation v. Loomis
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Justice.
Respondent, as successor to Idaho Bartile Company, instituted this action to recover the contract price of installation of a tile roof upon appellants’ dwelling house, together with attorney fees, alleging performance of its obligation to install the roof, required by a written contract of the parties, respondent’s predecessor and appellants.
Appellants by their answer admit the execution of the contract but deny the remaining material allegations of the complaint. Appellants by way of separate defenses allege:
First: That respondent is barred from maintaining this action because…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto ShopIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Arundel v. TurkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Manley v. Harvey Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Jeffrey v. TrouseMontana Supreme Court · 1935
- Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Dinneen v. FinchIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
- Olsen v. HawkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
- Nelson v. HazelIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
- Rousselle v. JewettArizona Supreme Court · 1966
- Gaige v. City of BoiseIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.