Atlantic-Pacific Oil Co. v. Gas Development Co.
Montana Supreme Court
1Dissent
I dissent. The utility of a dissenting opinion has long been doubted. The chief beneficiary of their promulgation is the public printer, and thereby an additional burden is placed upon the taxpayer and the buying public. Bearing these conclusions in mind, I shall record my views as briefly as possible.
The majority of the court has agreed upon a result but is divided within itself upon the reasons for arriving at a decision. The diversity of opinion is upon the meaning to be given to the words appearing in the closing paragraph of the contract, namely: "This contract is made subject to the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Englestien v. MintzIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Byrne v. DrainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- McDaniel v. Hager-Stevenson Oil Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1926
- State Ex Rel. Nagle v. StaffordMontana Supreme Court · 1934
- Northwestern Fire & Marine Insurance v. PollardMontana Supreme Court · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.