Dennison v. Willcut
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Kootenai County. The court erred in refusing the application to file the supplemental complaint. The application was made in due time, and in proper form. The refusal was an abuse of discretion. (Rev. Stats., see. 4219; Seehorn v. B. M. & B. W. B. Go., 60 Cal. 240; Holyoke v. Adams, 59 N. Y. 233.) The husband' is not, under any circumstances, however, required, under our statutes, to sign any ‘bill of sale or assignment of the money of a wife.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Kootenai County. The court erred in refusing the application to file the supplemental complaint. The application was made in due time, and in proper form. The refusal was an abuse of discretion. (Rev. Stats., see. 4219; Seehorn v. B. M. & B. W. B. Go., 60 Cal. 240; Holyoke v. Adams, 59 N. Y. 233.) The husband' is not, under any circumstances, however, required, under our statutes, to sign any ‘bill of sale or assignment of the money of a wife. The separate property act does not refer to the money demand of a wife. (Goles v. Soulsby, 21 Cal. 47; Peck v. Yandenberg,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
In this case the plaintiff alleges that Estella E. Bradford was the owner and in possession of fifteen head of cows and heifers, and other livestock. That she did, on or about the twenty-ninth day of November, 1887, lease to the defendant, O. Willcut, the said stock, upon the condition that he was to care for said stock, and have possession thereof, for the term of five years on and after the said twenty-ninth day of November, and to receive therefor one-half of the increáse, the ■other half to go to and be returned by the said Estella E. Bradford. It was further agreed' that, in case of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Kelly v. LeachmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stude v. GrossSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917