Gilpatrick v. Hunter

24 Me. 18
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedMay 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 24 Me. 18 (Gilpatrick v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gilpatrick v. Hunter, 24 Me. 18 (Me. 1844).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was by

Shepley J.

The plaintiff commenced an action of trespass against the defendants and Seth Leonard, for a joint trespass committed upon his person and property. He afterward received of Leonard five dollars “in full of said Leonard’s trespass, where he and Wilson P. Hunter were in company, together with others.” The question presented is, whether this operated to discharge the other joint trespassers.

In a joint trespass, or tort, each is considered as sanctioning the acts of all the others, thereby making them his own. Each is therefore liable for the whole damage, as occasioned by himself, and it may be recovered by a suit against him alone. There can be no separate estimate of the injury committed by each and a recovery accordingly. Brown v. Allen, 4 Esp. R. 158; Wynne v. Anderson, 3 C. & P. 596.

The difficulty in maintaining the suit against the others is, that the law considers, that the one, who has paid for the injury occasioned by him, and has been discharged, committed [20]*20the whole trespass and occasioned the whole injury, and that he has therefore satisfied the plaintiff for the whole injury, which he received. Co. Litt. 232; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 M. 12; Hobart, 66; Kiffin v. Willis, 4 Mod. 379.

The plaintiff by his own act appears to have precluded himself from a recovery against the defendants.

Exceptions sustained,

and a new trial granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Emery Waterhouse Co. v. Lea
467 A.2d 986 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1983)
Steeves v. Irwin
233 A.2d 126 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1967)
City of Tulsa v. McIntosh
1923 OK 109 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Carpenter v. W. H. McElwain Co.
97 A. 560 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1916)
Dwy v. Connecticut Co.
92 A. 883 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1915)
McDonald v. Goddard Grocery Co.
171 S.W. 650 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Laughlin v. Excelsior Powder Manufacturing Co.
134 S.W. 116 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Hubbard v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad
72 S.W. 1073 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
McBride v. Scott
61 L.R.A. 445 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1903)
Abb v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
58 L.R.A. 293 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Vigeant v. Scully
35 Ill. App. 44 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Me. 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilpatrick-v-hunter-me-1844.