Case ID: mont_105/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MR. JUSTICE MORRIS Mr. Justice Angstman: Mr. Chief Justice Sands : \n      Mr. Justice Anderson: Mr. Justice Stewart: PER CURIAM. Associate Justices Stewart and Anderson:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ATLANTIC PACIFIC OIL CO., Respondent, v. MONTANA EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. et al., Appellants.
    (No. 7,557.)
    (Submitted January 5, 1937.
    Decided February 2, 1937.
    Reargued on Rehearing April 8, 1937.
    Decided May 24, 1937.)
    [69 Pac. (2d) 763.]
    
      Mr. F. G. Huntington and Mr. D. L. O’Hern, for Appellants.
    
      Mr. B. G. Wiggenhorn, for Respondent.
    For syllabus see Atlantic Pacific Oil Co. v. Gas Development Co. et al., ante, p. 1.
   MR. JUSTICE MORRIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause was submitted on the same briefs and the same argument as was had in case No. 7,556, this day decided. Upon the grounds and for the reasons appearing in my opinion this day filed therein, the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Angstman:

I concur in the result reached in the opinion of Mr. Justice Morris, upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in my special concurring opinion filed this day in cause No. 7,556.

Mr. Chief Justice Sands :

I concur in the special opinion of Mr. Justice Angstman.

Mr. Justice Anderson:

I dissent from the opinions of Mr. Justice Morris and Mr. Justice Angstman, filed herein this day, upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in cause No. 7,556.

Mr. Justice Stewart:

I concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Anderson.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Opinion:

PER CURIAM.

Petition for rehearing herein is denied. The court, however, for the reasons stated in the opinion on a like petition in the companion ease of Atlantic Pacific Oil Company of Montana v. Gas Development Company et al., No. 7,556, filed this day, is of opinion that by appropriate supplemental or amended pleadings addressed to the trial court, the questions presented by the ‘petition for rehearing should be considered by the trial court, subject to any defense that the plaintiff may interpose, except the defense that such relief is barred by the decision in this ease.

Associate Justices Stewart and Anderson:

We dissent from the portion of the foregoing opinion denying the motion for a rehearing, and as to the residue we concur.