Ellis v. Younie

Idaho Supreme Court

Ellis v. Younie

269 P. 599, 46 Idaho 613, 1928 Ida. LEXIS 144

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 2, 1928

DocketNo. 4956.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 P. 599 (Ellis v. Younie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis v. Younie, 269 P. 599, 46 Idaho 613, 1928 Ida. LEXIS 144 (Idaho 1928).

Pincite

Opinions

Action by corporate creditor to recover the unpaid portion of par value of preferred stock. While the number of shares and the defendant are different, the dates and facts alleged in this action, in all essentials, are the same as in Ellis v.Capps (No. 4955), ante, p. 606, 269 P. 597. The two complaints are the same, and identical demurrers were interposed as to each. The demurrers were heard and passed on by the trial court together, and while separate appeals were perfected, the two appeals were argued together. Both complaints and both demurrers were filed at the same time, and the questions raised are identical. What has been said in the case of Ellis v. Capps, supra, applies with equal force in this case.

We recommend that the judgment be affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Brinck and Baker, CC., concur. *Page 614

The foregoing is approved as the opinion of the court. The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Wm. E. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur.

Givens, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Action by corporate creditor to recover the unpaid portion of par value of preferred stock. While the number of shares and the defendant are different, the dates and facts alleged in this action, in all essentials, are the same as in Ellis v.Capps (No. 4955), ante, p. 606, 269 P. 597. The two complaints are the same, and identical demurrers were interposed as to each. The demurrers were heard and passed on by the trial court together, and while separate appeals were perfected, the two appeals were argued together. Both complaints and both demurrers were filed at the same time, and the questions raised are identical. What has been said in the case of Ellis v. Capps, supra, applies with equal force in this case.