Legal Opinion

Falk v. Humbird Lumber Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1922PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMccarthy, J.

These are actions for damages to real estate, in which respondent claims that appellant companies made such use of Priest River in floating their-logs that they damaged his land. For convenience the case against the Humbird Lumber Co. will hereafter be called the Humbird case, and the one against the Dalkena Lumber Co. the Dalkena case. Each complaint contains two causes of action. In the first cause of action in the Humbird case respondent alleges that he is the owner of the land in question; that Priest River is a navigable stream and flows through said land; that prior to the acts of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boise Valley Construction Co. v. KroegerIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Young v. Extension Ditch Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1907
  3. McGuire v. Post Falls Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Mashburn v. St. Joe Improvement Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1910
  5. La Veine v. Stack-Gibbs Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1909

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Alesko v. Union Pacific RailroadIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Independent School District v. C. B. Lauch Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Shaw v. City of RupertIdaho Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Independent School District v. C. B. Lauch Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Shaw v. City of RupertIdaho Supreme Court · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API