Paddock-Hawley Iron Co. v. Rice
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». W. B. Douglas, Judge. (1) The general rule that neither contribution nor indemnity will be given to one of several tortfeasors against the others is only applied in cases of intentional and conscious wrongdoing; if the tortious act was committed without guilty intent, or if the plaintiff without personal fault has been exposed to liability, because of his responsibility for the acts of the actual wrongdoer, he can recover…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». W. B. Douglas, Judge. (1) The general rule that neither contribution nor indemnity will be given to one of several tortfeasors against the others is only applied in cases of intentional and conscious wrongdoing; if the tortious act was committed without guilty intent, or if the plaintiff without personal fault has been exposed to liability, because of his responsibility for the acts of the actual wrongdoer, he can recover contribution from those who participated in or shared the responsibility. Merryweather v. Nixan, 8 Dun. and East 186; Pahner…
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.
— This is a suit in equity for contribution. In March, 1891, one E- E. Casebeer was engaged in business in Williamsville, Wayne county, Missouri. The plaintiff, and the defendants, Eice, Stix & Co., James Beakey Stove Co., and Clark Shoe Co. (which has since ceased to do business and its former directors are sued as trustees of the company) were engaged in business in St. Louis, and the defendant M. Deguire & Co. was engaged in business in Frederick-town, Missouri. Sometime prior to March 17,1891, the Peters-Miller Shoe Co. began an attachment suit against Casebeer and had it levied on his…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miller v. Highland Ditch Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
- Newcomb v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- City of St. Louis v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Vandiver & Co. v. PollakSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Hubbard v. St. Louis & Meramec River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Best v. YerkesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
- Ellis v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
- Shock v. BerryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Eaton & Prince Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906