Legal Opinion

Stacy v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided April 3, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

The defendant contends that the release above set forth constitutes a bar to the present action as a matter of law. It bases its argument upon the rule that “the release of one joint tort-feasor is a bar to a suit against the others.” The law was thus stated in Wheat v. Carter, 79 N. H. 150, and this statement may have its uses as a concise formula by which reference may be made to a number of legal doctrines incapable of compression into such limited compass, but as pointed out in that case, it cannot be accepted as an accurate exposition of the law. It must constantly be borne in mind that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HilligossIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Allen v. RulandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  3. Johnson v. Von ScholleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  4. Goss v. EllisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
  5. Reutenik v. Gibson Packing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Black v. MartinMontana Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Archie v. HamptonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
  3. Estabrook v. American Hoist & Derrick, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985
  4. McCullough v. John B. Varick Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
  5. Goglia v. RandSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974

3 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