Legal Opinion

National Ro-Tile Corporation v. Loomis

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1960No. 8766PublishedCited by 16 opinions

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

  1. Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto ShopIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Arundel v. TurkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Manley v. Harvey Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  4. Jeffrey v. TrouseMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Pemberton v. Ladue Realty & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1949

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Dinneen v. FinchIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Olsen v. HawkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Nelson v. HazelIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Rousselle v. JewettArizona Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Gaige v. City of BoiseIdaho Supreme Court · 1967

11 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