Legal Opinion

Hirning v. Hamlin

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 15, 1925PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorling, J.

The sufficiency of the facts to constitute, or the maturity of, the cause of action, or the propriety or form of the remedy sought, is not challenged. The only objection raised by the demurrer is that the plaintiff is a receiver appointed in a foreign jurisdiction, and of a foreign corporation, or is an officer of another' state, not vested with title to the cause of action, and therefore not entitled to sue in Iowa.

The same person has not occupied the office of superintendent of banks of South Dakota during- the entire time in question ; but whether one pei’son or another was acting at any…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hale v. AllinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Bernheimer v. ConverseSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  3. Converse v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  5. Great Western Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1905

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hilt v. WeberMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Austin, Commissioner v. StrongTexas Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Preston v. HowellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
  4. Andrew v. Sac County State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
  5. Broderick v. McGuireSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934

9 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