Ramsey v. District Court of Sixth Judicial District of State of Idaho
| Decision Date | 20 November 1920 |
| Parties | L. THOMAS RAMSEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR LEMHI COUNTY, and O. R. BAUM, Acting District Judge, Defendants |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
PROHIBITION-DISMISSAL OF ACTION-AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF SOUGHT BY CROSS-COMPLAINT.
1. Under C. S., sec. 6830, a plaintiff has an absolute right to dismiss his action, providing a counterclaim has not been filed or affirmative relief sought by the cross-complaint or answer of defendant.
2. In order for a cross-complaint to be sufficient to prevent plaintiff from dismissing his action, it must state facts sufficient to entitle the cross-complainant to affirmative relief.
3. A cross-complaint filed by a defendant in an action for the adjudication of water rights from a stream, but which states only that the cross-complainant is the owner of certain lands; that he has appropriated water for their irrigation and used the water each and every irrigation season thereafter upon such lands; that the lands are arid in character and require artificial irrigation for the production of crops, does not state facts which entitle the cross-complainant to affirmative relief.
4. Upon dismissal of an action by a plaintiff, the court thereby loses jurisdiction, and a writ of prohibition may issue to prevent further proceedings in the action.
Original proceeding instituted by plaintiffs to obtain writ of prohibition. Peremptory writ issued.
Peremptory writ of prohibition issued. No costs allowed.
Quarles & Padgham, for Plaintiffs.
The motion to dismiss the action, made by the petitioner, Ramsey and in which the defendants and cross-complainants joined should have been granted as a matter of right, and it was the mandatory duty of the respondent district court and O. R. Baum, sitting as judge thereof, to dismiss said action. ( Elliott v. Collins, 6 Idaho 266, 55 P. 301.)
The right of the plaintiff in said action, with the consent of the defendants and cross-complainants, to dismiss the action is absolute, and the respondent district court had no jurisdiction to deny the right of the parties to dismiss said action, which was there and then abandoned by the parties and dismissed, and the subject matter withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the respondent district court. The respondent district court and the respondent acting judge thereafter had no jurisdiction of the parties, or of the subject matter.
There was no counterclaim presented by the pleadings on behalf of the defendants, or any of them, other than by the cross-complaint of Edwin L. Call and Louise J. Call, which was abandoned when they joined in the motion of the plaintiff to dismiss the action. (C. S., secs. 6655, 6657, 6695; Hegeler v. Henckell, 27 Cal. 492; Carpenter v. Nutter, 127 Cal. 61, 59 P. 301, and authorities therein cited.)
J. M. Stevens, for Defendants, files no brief.
This is a proceeding to procure a writ of prohibition directed to the district court of the sixth judicial district, in and for Lemhi county, and to O. R. Baum, acting judge, prohibiting further proceedings in the case of Ramsey v. Lawyer et al. That case was instituted by Charles H. and George A. Holbrook on July 29, 1919, for the purpose of securing an adjudication of their right to the use of the waters of Basin Creek. To this complaint Edwin L. Call and Louise J. Call, named therein as defendants, answered and filed cross-complaints. On October 9, 1919, H. V. Rice et al., who were parties to the suit, answered the complaint and also filed cross-complaints. The plaintiff, Ramsey, was substituted for the plaintiffs, Holbrook, and on April 3, 1920, filed an amended complaint. With the pleadings in this condition, on May 8, 1920, the plaintiff, Ramsey, moved to dismiss the action. His petition in this proceeding alleges that all the defendants and cross-complainants joined in the motion to dismiss. This allegation is denied by the defendants in the following language: "That the statement of the petitioner herein to the effect that all the parties to said action joined in the application for said dismissal is untrue, as will appear from the exhibit hereinbefore referred to and the affidavit of L. E. Glennon attached hereto and made a part hereof." The exhibit referred to was the motion to dismiss, and shows that it was signed only by the plaintiff and his attorney.
The affidavit of L. E. Glennon states: "That said H. V. Rice has never joined in any motion to dismiss this action, and is not now in favor of the dismissal of such action, and has advised this affiant, as his attorney, that he will not consent to any dismissal thereof." It thus appears that Rice was a cross-complainant, and that he did not consent to the dismissal.
Under C. S., sec. 6830, a plaintiff has an absolute right to dismiss his action, provided a counterclaim has not been filed or affirmative relief sought by the cross-complaint or answer of defendant. The dismissal may be accomplished by a motion addressed to the court, as well as by a formal certificate of dismissal. If a motion be made, the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxwell v. Terrell
...a petitioner requests that his name be withdrawn before action, the district judge has no power to deny the request. ( Ramsey v. District Court, 33 Idaho 296, 193 P. 733.) Jas. Bothwell, Amicus Curiae. "The withdrawal of signatures from a petition which are required to invoke jurisdiction s......
-
State ex rel. Tibbals v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial District In And for Fremont County
...P. 457. Dismissal order is ministerial. Boyd v. Steele, (Ida.) 59 P. 21. Writ of prohibition will lie to cover order of dismissal. Ramsey v. Court, 193 P. 733. Right exists from the time of motion. Kaufman v. Court, 46 P. 904; State v. Court, 79 P. 546. Supreme Court will construe its own m......
-
Molen v. Denning & Clark Livestock Co., 6246
...50 P.2d 9 56 Idaho 57 DONALD F. MOLEN et al., Respondents, v ... 6246Supreme Court of IdahoSeptember 27, 1935 ... APPEAL ... from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, for ... Merchants & Farmers State Bank v. Ronning, 57 N.D ... 482, 222 N.W. 618; ... District Court, 32 Idaho 607, 186 P. 922; Ramsey ... v. District Court, 33 Idaho 296, 193 P. 733; ... ...
-
John Hoene Implement, Inc. v. Peters
...66 Idaho 384, at page 394, 159 P.2d 891; Hunter v. Porter, 10 Idaho 72, 77 P. 434; it also requests affirmative relief. Ramsey v. District Court, 33 Idaho 296, 193 P. 733. This Court elaborated upon a cross-complaint in Brown v. T. B. Reed & Co., supra, [31 Idaho 529, 174 P. 137] when it sa......