Legal Opinion

Stennick v. Jones

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 10, 1919No. 3139PublishedCited by 2 opinions

On motions to modify decree of reversal. Addendum, to be considered in connection with original opinion. .

1Per curiam

Upon motions and counter motions for modifications.

As to costs: The formal order of this court was for a reversal and an accounting for any liability of defendants under the terms of the contract discussed in the opinion of the court. Inasmuch as appellant had to come to this court for any substantial relief, and has been awarded a decree, the usual rule should prevail, and he should recover his costs in this court.

With respect to personal liability of Jones and Kribs, our opinion holds that they, being parties to the suit and being sued as joint tort-feasors, are liable individually for any…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Edmonds v. Spanish River Pulp & Paper Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1913

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stennick v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1922
  2. Stennick v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1919

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API