Court Opinion

ID: 9661041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:27:20.013577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:24.687123
License: Public Domain

Smith and McCown, JJ.,
dissenting.
Some cases may call for investigation of rules concerning trust relations, real parties in interest, or split causes of action. Compare Omaha & R. V. Ry. Co. v. Granite State Fair Ins. Co., 53 Neb. 514, 73 N. W. 950, *597with Dixon v. Coffey, 161 Neb. 487, 73 N. W. 2d 660. The present case is not one of them. Plaintiff’s client commenced no action against the alleged third-party tort-feasor. There was no legal compulsion approaching that in United Services Automobile Assn. v. Hills, 172 Neb. 128, 109 N. W. 2d 174, 2 A. L. R. 3d 1422. Yet the majority opinion holds that plaintiff’s claim is actionable on the ground of legal compulsion.
The purpose of the rule against splitting causes of action is to prevent multiplicity of suits and to protect a debtor from harassment. Parties do not violate the rule when they reach, a partial settlement agreement without commencing action; they may leave the controverted part for litigation. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.R. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 59 Kan. 432, 53 P. 459, 39 Am. S. R. 504; Bliss v. New York Cent. & H. R.R. Co., 160 Mass. 447, 36 N. E. 65; Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Klomparens, 273 Mich. 493, 263 N. W. 724. We would affirm the action of the district court.