Legal Opinion

Ross v. Gold Ridge Mining Co.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1908PublishedCited by 11 opinions

APPEAL from an order of the District Court of First Judicial District for the County of Kootenai dissolving an attachment. Hon. W. W. Woods, Judge. The complaint does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, if it did not, it could be amended. A motion to discharge an attachment does not reach defects in the complaint.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from an order of the District Court of First Judicial District for the County of Kootenai dissolving an attachment. Hon. W. W. Woods, Judge. The complaint does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, if it did not, it could be amended. A motion to discharge an attachment does not reach defects in the complaint. (Kohler v. Agassiz, 99 Cal. 9, 33 Pac. • 741.) Contracts of the nature of the one in the case at bar are contracts for the direct payment of money, and writs of attachment will issue thereon. (Dunn v. Mackey, 80 Cal. 104, 22 Pac. 64; Santa Clara Valley Peat…

1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. It is alleged in the complaint that the appellant and respondent entered into an agreement, whereby and under the terms of which the respondent agreed that if plaintiff would take 25,000 shares of the treasury stock of the respondent corporation, and pay therefor two cents a share, the respondent would at any time after the first day of September, 1906, place said 25,000 shares of stock for plaintiff at five cents a share, clear to him; that thereupon plaintiff paid to said defendant the sum of $500 for said 25,000 shares of treasury…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kohler v. AgassizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hathaway v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. De Leonis v. EtchepareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Dunn v. MackeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Foore v. Simon Piano Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Gilna v. BarkerMontana Supreme Court · 1927
  3. B. J. Carney & Co. v. MurphyIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Finley v. PewWyoming Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Knutsen v. PhillipsIdaho Supreme Court · 1909

6 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