Lachner v. Myers
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentTolman, J.
(dissenting) — I am unable to concur in the views of the majority. As is said, the general rule is that, “the payment of a judgment by one primarily liable will extinguish the debt, ’ ’ and, in my opinion, the majority errs in holding that the intention of the parties, as such, can defeat this rule. On the contrary, except there be an equitable right of subrogation, the intention of the parties cannot defeat the legal effect of the payment. While some of the following authorities, because of divergent facts, may, on hasty consideration, be said not to be in point, yet all support the view…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Zimmerman v. GaumerIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Henry & Coatsworth Co. v. HalterNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Klippel v. ShieldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- First National Bank v. GibsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1900
- Lillie v. DennertCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.