Horner v. Chamberlain

Decision Date18 April 1906
Citation85 P. 927,12 Idaho 304
PartiesFRED J. HORNER, Appellant, v. A. V. CHAMBERLAIN et al., Respondents
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District for Kootenai County. Hon. Ralph T. Morgan, Judge.

Action for malicious prosecution. Demurrer to complaint sustained and judgment of dismissal entered. Reversed.

Reversed and remanded, with direction. Costs awarded to appellant.

Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

OPINION

This action was commenced to recover damages for malicious prosecution, and the pleadings and questions involved herein are substantially the same as in the case of Wm. J. Russell, Appellant, v. A. V. Chamberlain et al., Respondents, decided at this term of this court and reported in 85 P. 926, (ante, p. 299), and by stipulation of counsel this case was the follow the decision in the said case of Russell v. Chamberlain. On the authority of that case, the judgment in this case must be reversed and the case remanded, with direction to the trial court to overrule the demurrers and to give the respondents a reasonable time in which to answer. Costs awarded to appellant.

Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Luther v. First Bank of Troy
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1943
    ... ... part of the appellants, want of probable cause for the ... prosecution alleged to have been malicious. (Russell v ... Chamberlain, 12 Idaho 299, 85 P. 926; Horner v ... Chamberlain, 12 Idaho 304, 85 P. 927; Nettleton v ... Cook, 30 Idaho 82, 163 P. 300; Castles v ... ...
  • Donaldson v. Miller
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1937
    ...for the prosecution alleged to have been malicious (Russell v. Chamberlain, 12 Idaho 299, 85 P. 926, 9 Ann. Cas. 1173; Horner v. Chamberlain, 12 Idaho 304, 85 P. 927; Nettleton v. Cook, 30 Idaho 82, 163 P. 300, L. R. 1917D, 1194; Castles v. Lynch, 36 Idaho 636, 212 P. 970; Lowe v. Skaggs Sa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT