Donovan-Hopka-Ninneman Co. v. Hope Lumber Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. Action by the Hope Dumber Manufacturing Company against the Donovan-Hopka-Ninneman Company, Limited, and' others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. The defendant in error, a corporation of the state of Montana, was the plaintiff in the court below.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. Action by the Hope Dumber Manufacturing Company against the Donovan-Hopka-Ninneman Company, Limited, and' others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. The defendant in error, a corporation of the state of Montana, was the plaintiff in the court below. The individual plaintiffs in error were citizens of the state of Idaho, of which state the Donovan-Hopka-Ninneman Company, Limited, was a corporation and also a citizen. The complaint in the action contained two counts, both of which set forth the…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The defendant. in error (plaintiff below) acquired its alleged rights in and to the property in question under a deed from one Kenneth Ross, who acquired whatever rights he had thereto under a deed to him from an Idaho corporation styled Hope Lumber Company, which com]Kiny acquired its rights in the property, if any, under a deed executed to it on the 25th d'ay of September, 1901, by Frank B. Carter, who under-*647í(H>k lo convey thereby to the Hope Lumber Company “all the following' described lots, pieces, or parcels of land, situated in the county of Kootenai…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Illinois Central Railroad v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Yates v. MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Barney v. KeokukSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Packer v. BirdSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- McDaniel v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1915