Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Banbury v. Brailsford

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1945No. 7161Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBudge, J.

I agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the judgment should be reversed.

In my opinion this action is a local and not a transitory action; that the district court of Twin Falls County was without jurisdiction over the subject-matter involved, which objection may be raised at any time and cannot be waived. (1 C.J. p. 35, sec. 26.) Therefore, said district court had no jurisdiction to enter the judgment or to make any orders in connection with the proceedings had. I am fully satisfied, both upon principle as well as by the provisions of sec. 5-401, I.C.A., (see also…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. Royal Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Fritts v. CampCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Urton v. WoolseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Taylor v. Sommers Bros. MatchIdaho Supreme Court · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API