White Earth Products Co. v. Idaho First Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 12 February 1948
• Docket Number: 7389
• Citation: 189 P.2d 1022,68 Idaho 132
• Parties: WHITE EARTH PRODUCTS CO. v. IDAHO FIRST NAT. BANK, CALDWELL BRANCH, et al
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

189 P.2d 1022

68 Idaho 132

WHITE EARTH PRODUCTS CO. v. IDAHO FIRST NAT. BANK, CALDWELL BRANCH, et al

No. 7389

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 12, 1948

Appeal from Error to District Court, 7th Judicial District, Canyon County; Hon. Thos. E. Buckner, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Cleve Groome, of Caldwell, for appellant.

A person may stand on his complaint after demurrer sustained and it is error to dismiss the action if the complaint states a cause of action on any grounds. Smith v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 47 Idaho 604, 277 P. 570-572; I.C.A Section 7-705; I.C.A. Section 7-706.

Karl Paine, Edwin Snow, and Walter M. Oros, all of Boise, for respondent Bank.

The power of the lower court to dismiss an action after a pleader has declined to amend his faulty pleading is beyond question in this state; the fault can be other than failure to state a cause of action. Kruger v. St. Joe Lumber Co., 11 Idaho 504, 83 P. 695; Phy v. Selby, 35 Idaho 409 207 P. 1077; Chambers v. McCollum, 47 Idaho 74, 272 P. 707.

Appellant cites 7-705-6, I.C.A., as forbidding the dismissal herein. The interpretation of said sections by this Court does not support the contention. Greenhow v. Whitehead's Inc., 67 Idaho 262, 175 P.2d 1007.

F. W. Jarvis, of Caldwell, for respondents Crookham.

Givens, Chief Justice. Holden, Miller, and Hyatt, JJ., and Sutphen, District Judge, concur.

OPINION

Givens, Chief Justice.

The filing of an original complaint and successive sustained demurrers and motions to strike and amended complaints, culminated in a third amended complaint, to which a motion to strike one paragraph thereof, was sustained. The general demurrer of respondents Crookhams was not sustained, but the special demurrers of all respondents for ambiguity, uncertainty, and unintelligibility were sustained, and upon appellant's expressed declination to plead further, the court refrained from ruling on a motion to separately state, and entered judgment of dismissal -- hence the appeal.

Appellant's contention is evidently to the effect that if the complaint states some cause of action and a general demurrer challenging it on that ground is not sustained, judgment of dismissal may not be entered upon an order sustaining demurrers for ambiguity, uncertainty and unintelligibility. Though it is somewhat anomalous, appellant does not argue the complaint was not deficient in the particulars questioned by the special demurrers. It would thus appear the sole issue before us is as thus expressed by respondent Bank:

"It does not discuss the merits of the demurrer or motion, but rests its appeal solely upon the proposition that the order of dismissal was erroneous because its third amended complaint states a cause of action. Thus is presented for decision here the question of the Court's power to dismiss the action. The question does not involve the right of appellant to file a fourth amended complaint. Appellant did not ask permission to amend, but elected to stand upon the third amended complaint."

Section 5-607, I.C.A., enumerates seven distinct grounds of de...