Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kangas v. Winquist

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 5, 1940No. Nos. 32,214, 32,215Published

1DissentLoring, Justice

It must be conceded that at common law there would be no liability upon a partner for a tort committed by another partner outside the scope of the partnership business. Therefore, the problem is, has either the partnership act or the owners’ liability act changed the situation. The majority opinion rests chiefly on the owners’ liability act; but since the two acts, in my opinion, are involved in a determination of the question, I shall discuss them in what seems to me to be their logical sequence.

1. The uniform partnership act, passed in Minnesota in 1921, 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 7396,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Caplan v. CaplanNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
  2. Leppard v. O'BrienAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
  3. Belleson v. SkilbeckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  4. Windom National Bank v. KleinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  5. Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936

7 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