Swinehart v. Pocatello Meat & Produce Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Bannock County. The motion of defendant for affirmance of the judgment of the justice court should have been denied. It was made upon the ground that the appeal was taken upon both law and fact, which was a proper appeal. The case was decided upon facts raised by the pleadings, alleged in the complaint and .admitted in the answer, and the appeal was properly taken upon both law and fact.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Bannock County. The motion of defendant for affirmance of the judgment of the justice court should have been denied. It was made upon the ground that the appeal was taken upon both law and fact, which was a proper appeal. The case was decided upon facts raised by the pleadings, alleged in the complaint and .admitted in the answer, and the appeal was properly taken upon both law and fact. (Curtis v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 435; Myrich v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. 98, 8 Pac. 648.) Even if there was no issue of fact joined, the district court should have heard the case…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, C. J.
— This action was originally commenced in the justice’s court of Pocatello préeinet, Bannock county, to recover upon a note executed by the Pocatello Meat Company, by George W. Smith, against the respondent, a corporation. The respondent answered, denying the authority of said G. W. Smith to execute said note for and on behalf of said respondent corporation. Said answer, by way of cross-action against the plaintiff, cross-complained and alleged that said note was executed in part payment of nine hundred tons of ice purchased by it from the appellant, and alleged fraudulent misrepresentations…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Davenport v. BurkeIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. ReedIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Duane v. MolinakMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Lovel v. JoyceIdaho Supreme Court · 1903