Stover v. Stover
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Blaine County. Leave, apparently ex parte, had been given respondent to file an amended answer and cross-complaint, but he had not filed either; there being nothing before the court at that time save the complaint, appellant was entitled to dismiss her action. (Kev. Stats., see. 4354.)
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, J.
This is the second time that this cause has been before this court on appeal. Upon a decision of the first appeal (see Stover v. Stover, 6 Idaho, 493, 56 Pac. 263). we held that the cross-complaint of the respondent did not state a cause of action, and that the respondent was not entitled thereunder to the affirmative relief granted him by the judgment, and reversed the judgment. Hpon the return of this cause to the lower court the plaintiff moved to dismiss her action, but her motion was denied, and the lower court refused to permit the plaintiff to dismiss her action. Two days thereafter…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boyd v. SteeleIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
- Stover v. StoverIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by7 opinions
- Coon v. CoonMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Keefer v. KeeferSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Hillman v. HillmanWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Sheffer v. ShefferMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Yusky v. Chief Consol. Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.