Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc. v. United Pacific Insurance

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1964No. 9267Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFADDEN, Justice

*201I concur in the portion of the majority opinion dealing with the issue of whether appellant’s acceptance of the promissory note affected a material alteration of the suretyship contract, and also concur in that portion of the opinion pertaining to the necessity of a compensated surety showing prejudice. I also concur that the cause should be remanded for a new trial. However, I dissent from that portion of the opinion determining that no recovery could be had for the two carloads (truckloads) of potatoes represented by Exhibits 4 and 5.

The question presented is whether appellant Ore-Ida…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bloom v. BenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Morro Palisades Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Lebrecht v. Union Indemnity Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Baldwin v. Standard Accident InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  5. Pyrke v. Standard Accident InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1932

4 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