Livingston v. Bishop
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff brought separate actions of trespass against the defendant, and five other persons for a joint trespass.™ The defendant was the principal trespasser, and the other defendants acted as his servants.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff brought separate actions of trespass against the defendant, and five other persons for a joint trespass.™ The defendant was the principal trespasser, and the other defendants acted as his servants. Pending the suits, and before trial of either of them, the counsel on both sides entered into a written agreement, that the defendant, Bishops should, upon the trial of the cause against him, be considered as answerable for the whole trespass committed by all the defendants : and in case a verdict should be found against him, and this court should be of opinion that the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtKent, C. J.
On looking into the books witli'a view to this question, J wag surprised to meet with so much contradiction, and uncertainty on the subject. The cases are not all capable of being reconciled to each other, and some of them appear to me not reconcileable with reason. It is, however, a pro? position that is not controverted, but every where admitted, that for a joint trespass, the plaintiff may sue all the trespassers jointly, or each of them separately, and that each is answerable for the act of all. It would seem to result from this doctrine, that a trial and recovery against one trespasser,…
2Cited by73 opinions
- Lindley v. KelleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Knapp v. . RocheNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Russell v. . McCallNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Donaldson v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Turner v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.