Maxwell v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcNAUGHTON, J.
Plaintiffs seek to remove a cloud upon their title to lands set forth in the complaint. The alleged cloud is a document executed by the defendant, appellant here, and acknowledged by it. It is in the nature of a claim or what is termed an equitable lien.
Appellant company attacked the pleadings and moved to strike the whole of paragraph 8 of the complaint. It assigns as error the court’s order refusing to do so.
The complaint, after setting forth the corporate existence of the defendant Twin Falls Canal Company, and the corporate existence of certain of the plaintiffs, then sets forth that on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hoag v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Harris v. ReedIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Steinour v. Oakley State BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Swanson v. GroatIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Valley Lumber Co. v. McGilveryIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jones v. JonesIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
- Sartain v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc.Idaho Court of Appeals · 1989
- In Re GVR Ltd. Co., Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1985
- Parks v. MathewsIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Idaho State Bar v. MeservyIdaho Supreme Court · 1958
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.