Phœnix Lumber Co. v. Regents of University of Idaho

Citations

• 197 F. 425
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5727

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading (§ 48*) — Complaint—Sufficiency.</p> <p>Under Rev. St. Idaho 1887, § 4108, subd. 2, providing that the Complaint, among other things, must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language, a complaint merely alleging that on or about March 30, 1907, defendant was indebted to- plaintiff’s assignor in the sum of $3,000, which sum was then and there due .and payable from defendant to plaintiff’s assignor, was insufficient for failure to state the facts out of which such indebtedness arose.</p> <p>[Pd. Note. — Por other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 105, 106; Dec. Dig. § 48.*]</p> <p>2. Colleges and Universities (§ 10*) — States (§ 191*) — Public Corporation —State Board of Regents — Action Against State.</p> <p>Const. Idaho art. 9, § 10, provided that the location of the University of Idaho as established by existing laws was thereby confirmed, and that all the rights, immunities, franchises, and endowments previously granted thereto by the territory were perpetuated unto the University; that the Regents should have general supervision and control of the funds of the University under such regulations as might be prescribed by law. By Territorial Act Jan. 30, 1889 (Laws 1888-89, p. 17), the University was established and its government vested in a Board of Regents, to be appointed by the Governor; the board to constitute a body corporate as “The Regents of the University of Idaho,” and should possess all the powers necessary or convenient to accomplish the objects and perform the duties prescribed by law, and should have the books, records, buildings. and other property of the University. The board elects its own president, secretary, and treasurer, whose duties are similar to corresponding officers in private corporations. Held, that the Regents of the University had implied power to sue and be sued, and that an action brought against them was not obj'ectionable as in effect an action against the sta