Tomten v. Thomas
Montana Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff for the condemnation of the land should be sustained.
I disagree with the foregoing opinion so far as it holds that defendants are not entitled to attorney’s fees from plaintiff. I agree that “costs” can be recovered only when provided for by statute. Albrecht v. Albrecht, 83 Mont. 37, 269 Pac. 158, and eases therein cited. I agree likewise that attorney’s fees are not a part of the taxable costs in the absence of a statute or agreement authorizing…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Pittsfield & North Adams Railroad v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Matter of City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Burrage v. County of BristolMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- State Ex Rel. Snidow v. State Board of EqualizationMontana Supreme Court · 1932
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.