Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Harrington v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1934No. 7,213Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Angstman

I agree with what is said in the majority opinion with respect to the subject of the liability of defendant company. I also agree with what is said therein to the effect that whether defendant Thompson is liable is a question for the jury. I do not agree with the conclusion that the case should be remanded for a new trial as to defendant Thompson. As to him I think the judgment should be affirmed.

I concede that at common law the rule was that where a verdict had been rendered against two joint tort-feasors it would not be set aside as against one and permitted to stand as to the other. (20 E.…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Washington Gas Light Co. v. LansdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Autio v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  3. McNair v. BergerMontana Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Bailey v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Staff v. Montana Petroleum Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1930

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API