Court Opinion

ID: 9690793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:43:32.120619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:04.484073
License: Public Domain

Rodgers, J.,
specially concurring:
I concur in the results we have reached in this case based upon the peculiar facts alleged in the pleadings, *469together with the settlement here shown, but I do not want it to appear that I am of the opinion indemnity cannot be recovered in proper cases, even though a settlement of an action is the basis for the suit. Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, Burlington and Quinch R. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217, 25 Sup. Ct. 226, 49 L. Ed. 453 (1905); Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd. v. Joseph Gutradt Co., 10 F. 2d 769 (9th Cir. 1926); Mallory S. S. Co. v. Druhan, 17 Ala. App. 365, 84 So. 874 (1920); Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. American Dist. Elec. Protective Co., 106 Fla. 330, 143 So. 316 (1932); Palmer House Co. v. Otto, 347 Ill. App. 198, 106 N. E. 2d 753 (1st Dist. Ct. App. 1952); Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co., 114 Mass. 149 (1873); Popkin Bros., Inc. v. Volk’s Tire Co., 20 N. J. Misc. 1, 23 A. 2d 162 (1941); Colonial Motor Coach Corp. v. New York Cent. R. R., 228 N. Y. S. 508, 131 Misc. 891 (1928); Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., Ltd. v. Compania Transatlantica Espanola, 134 N. Y. 461, 31 N. E. 987 (1892); 1 Harper and James, Torts, § 10.2 (1956).