Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arnold v. Genzberger

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1934No. 7,109Published

1Dissent

It seems to me that, if we follow the law, the judgment cannot be sustained upon any conceivable theory.

1. As to the pleadings. By resort to extreme liberality it may be said that the complaint on its face states a cause of action against Meyer Genzberger, but the facts show that plaintiffs have no cause of action against him. To this all members of the court agree.

On the theory that the allegations respecting him are true, the complaint, liberally construed, may be held to state a cause of action against Gertrude Genzberger and Jennie G. Sternfels. The facts show plaintiffs have no cause of…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Bennecke v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Yellowstone County v. First Trust & Savings BankMontana Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Baldwin v. . BurrowsNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  4. Smith v. . TracyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
  5. Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1930

36 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