Eaton & Prince Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge. (1) Tbe general rule that there can be no contribution between tortfeasors is applied only in cases of intentional and conscious wrongdoing, in other cases of tort, it is allowed. 1 Kinkead’s Commentaries on Torts, sec. 85; Bailey v. Bussing, 28 Conn. 458; Jacobs v. Pollard, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 287; Dysart v. Crow, 170 Mo. 275; Armstrong County v. Clarion County, 66 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge. (1) Tbe general rule that there can be no contribution between tortfeasors is applied only in cases of intentional and conscious wrongdoing, in other cases of tort, it is allowed. 1 Kinkead’s Commentaries on Torts, sec. 85; Bailey v. Bussing, 28 Conn. 458; Jacobs v. Pollard, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 287; Dysart v. Crow, 170 Mo. 275; Armstrong County v. Clarion County, 66 Pa. St. 218; Ankenny v. Moffit, 37 Minn. 109; Moore v. Appleton, 26 Ala. 633. (2) There is no intention in negligence. Kinkead’s Commentaries on Torts, sec. 90;…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — The purpose of this action is to enforce contribution from respondent toward reimbursing appellant for the amount of a judgment recovered in an action of tort against both appellant and respondent as codefendants. The action which led to the judgment was brought by Margaretha Appel to obtain damages for the death of her husband. She charged that his death was caused by the negligence of said codefendants. It is stated in the present petition that both appellant and respondent appealed to this court from the judgment against them in favor of Mrs. Appel and that the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Colegrove v. New York & New Haven RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. ShackletIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Cuddy v. HornMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Churchill v. HoltMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Union Bus Lines v. ByrdTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Miller v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Missouri District Telegraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. PigottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
- Kinloch Telephone Co. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.