Murphy v. Russell & Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces Comity. This action being one in wjiich an answer was filed, would require the court to determine upon and to render a judgment upon all the issues within the pleadings. (Idaho Bev.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces Comity. This action being one in wjiich an answer was filed, would require the court to determine upon and to render a judgment upon all the issues within the pleadings. (Idaho Bev. Stats., .sec. 4353.) The defendant is authorized to file a cross-complaint for affirmative relief, when such relief relates to or depends upon the contract or transaction upon which the action is brought or affects the property to which the action relates, ;as shown at section 4188 of the Bevised Statutes of Idaho. (Duggar v. Dempsey, 13 Wash. 396, 43 Pac. 357.) See Siemens…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellants’ amended cross-complaint, which will be hereafter referred to as the cross-complaint. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the ease of Murphy v. Russell, decided at this term, and reported in ante, p. 133, 67 Pae. 431. This action was brought under the provisions of section 3396 of the Bevised Statutes, to contest the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, and this is an appeal by the respondents in that appeal. The appellants Bussell & Co. filed a cross-complaint, whereby they sought to foreclose a real estate mortgage (executed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stevens v. Home Savings & Loan Ass'nIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hunter v. PorterIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Murphy v. Russell & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Steltz v. Armory Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Shields v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.