Legal Opinion

Zach v. Pond

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1931No. 5687PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGivens, J.

Respondent sued defendant Pond as a produce dealer, and appellant Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, as his surety, under chap. 236, Sess. Laws 1927, amended chap. 180, Sess. Laws 1929, for a balance of $1847 due on a sale of potatoes by respondent to defendant Pond, December 23, 1929, with interest from said date at seven per cent per annum.

The Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, the only appellant, admitted that Pond was a produce dealer, and that it was his surety, but generally denied that the particular sale was within the terms of the statute.

At the trial, defendant Pond, as a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. McKelvey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. New York Cent. & H. R. R. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1908
  3. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
  4. United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
  5. Huson v. Richard B. Brown, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bicandi v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Matter of Estate of BowmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc. v. United Pacific InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc. v. United Pacific InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API