Jacobson v. McMillan
Idaho Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGivens, C.J.
I concur as to respondent Cromwell and his surety. I dissent as to respondent McMillan and his surety. The demurrer was properly sustained, therefore, on the ground that there was a misjoinder of parties defendant.
Eliminating respondent Cromwell and his surety, however, leaves for determination the question of whether the complaint states a cause of action against respondent McMillan and his surety, and if so, whether it is ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty as to the essential facts, and they are clearly and intelligibly set forth.
The demurrers, of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Binford v. JohnstonIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Kusah v. McCorkleWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. GallagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Weick v. LanderIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Anderson v. SettergrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.