Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hosking v. Hosking

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1947No. 8714Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Angstman

I agree that the complaint was and is insufficient as a basis for a decree on the ground of willful desertion for failure to allege the time when the. desertion took place and that the court erred in overruling the .demurrer and motion to strike. By thus agreeing with the majority on this issue, I ,am not to be understood as subscribing to the rule announced in the case of Crenshaw v. Crenshaw, Mont., 182 Pac. (2d) 477. In that case no objection was made to the sufficiency of the pleading as here.

I think, however, that no useful purpose would be subserved in remanding the case for a new trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Crenshaw v. CrenshawMontana Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Giebler v. GieblerMontana Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Vosburg v. VosburgCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Alves v. AlvesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Bibb v. BibbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API