Torpy v. Johnson
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Johnson county. Tried below before Babcock, J. Where there is a question of fact to be passed upon by the jury, it is error for the court to direct a verdict. (Grant v. Oropsey, 8 Neb., 205; Eaton v. Carruth, 11 Neb., 235.) It was the duty of the court, under the evidence, to direct a verdict for defendant. (Lent v. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 11 Neb., 204.)
1Opinion of the CourtPost, J.
This cause was before us at the September, 1892, term, at which time it was held that the plaintiff herein, Torpy, was not entitled to contribution from the defendant Johnson on account of money paid to satisfy a judgment on the *883bond of the former as a licensed saloon-keeper. (See Johnson v. Torpy, 35 Neb., 604.) The principle therein recognized is that contribution will not be enforced in favor of a wrong-doer who knew, at the time of the commission of the act for which he has been compelled to respond, that such act was wrongful. The judgment on account of which contribution is sought in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. TorpyNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by12 opinions
- Goldman v. Mitchell-Fletcher Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1975
- Mayberry v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Wanack v. MichelsIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Tober v. HamptonNebraska Supreme Court · 1965
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.