Curtiss v. Sprague
WILBUR CURTISS v. THOMAS SPRAGUE and CHARLES E. HUSE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William T. Wallace (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Wallace
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
The counter-claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and, under the provisions of the Practice Act, the plaintiff must be considered to have pleaded the statute by way of replication to the counter-claim.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Neither Mr. Justice Crockett nor Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed an opinion.
Cited by
- Jones v. Mortimer S. F. 17174 · 1946-07-23
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co. L. A. 14113 · 1935-06-25
- Kelley v. Hodge Transportation System Docket No. L.A. 8194. · 1925-12-11
- Platner v. Vincent Sac. No. 3454. · 1924-09-18
- Foster v. Young L. A. No. 3527. In Bank. · 1916-03-14
- Pacific Improvement Co. v. Maxwell Civ. No. 432. · 1915-01-08
- Melander v. Western National Bank Civ. No. 1039. · 1913-03-14
- Baker v. Baker Civ. No. 560. · 1909-01-28
- Peck v. Noee Sac. No. 1627. · 1908-10-09
- Moore v. Copp Sac. No. 212 · 1897-12-27
- Sterling v. Smith No. 14911 · 1893-02-17
- Williams v. Dennison No. 13987 · 1892-05-16
- Grangers' Business Ass'n v. Clark No. 12677 · 1890-05-31
- Rankin v. Sisters of Mercy No. 12458 · 1889-12-16
- Janes v. Throckmorton No. 6,450 · 1881-07-01
- Colton Land & Water Co. v. Raynor No. 7,472 · 1881-07-01