English rule in Montana

1975Also see the leading English case from which the doctrine arose, Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 El. & Bl. 678, and the leading-American case adopting the English rule, Boehm v. Horst, 178 U.S. 1 , 20 S.Ct. 780 , 44 L.Ed. 953 .

1975Also see the leading English case from which the doctrine arose, Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 El. & Bl. 678, and the leading-American case adopting the English rule, Boehm v. Horst, 178 U.S. 1 , 20 S.Ct. 780 , 44 L.Ed. 953 .

1958As Justice Wade pointed out in Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial Commission, supra, 115 Utah 1 , 201 Pac. (2d) [961], 969: ‘If an unexpected internal failure is an accidental injury, such failure caused by ordinary exertion is as much accidental as where caused by overexertion.

1958As Justice Wade pointed out in Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial Commission, supra, 115 Utah 1 , 201 Pac. (2d) [961], 969: ‘If an unexpected internal failure is an accidental injury, such failure caused by ordinary exertion is as much accidental as where caused by overexertion.

1958England held it was error to refuse an award because the workman had left the heavier work and was doing light work when the injury occurred; holding that a light strain causing a ruptured aneurism of the aorta was as compensable as if caused by a heavy strain.” In Bryant Stave & Heading Co. v. White, Ark. 1956, 296 S.W. (2d) 436, 439 , where an employee aggravated a prior back injury while doing usual work, the court said: “A very substantial majority of the courts of this country have adopted and followed the English rule and hold that an injury is accidental where either the cause or the re

1958England held it was error to refuse an award because the workman had left the heavier work and was doing light work when the injury occurred; holding that a light strain causing a ruptured aneurism of the aorta was as compensable as if caused by a heavy strain.” In Bryant Stave & Heading Co. v. White, Ark. 1956, 296 S.W. (2d) 436, 439 , where an employee aggravated a prior back injury while doing usual work, the court said: “A very substantial majority of the courts of this country have adopted and followed the English rule and hold that an injury is accidental where either the cause or the re

1956Bray v. Long, 21 Mont. 26 , 52 Pac. 645, 648 , tended to follow the strict English rule of not allowing judicial review of a legislative enactment when it said: “The presumption is that the legislature and the officers thereof did their duty, and that the enrolled bill was regularly passed.

1956Bray v. Long, 21 Mont. 26 , 52 Pac. 645, 648 , tended to follow the strict English rule of not allowing judicial review of a legislative enactment when it said: “The presumption is that the legislature and the officers thereof did their duty, and that the enrolled bill was regularly passed.

1955Nicholson v. Roundup Coal Mining Co., supra [ 79 Mont. 358 , 257 Pac. 276 ], The rule declared in the last cited case is applicable here wherein it was said: “In this class of cases the English rule is that, ‘if it appears that the employment was one of the contributing causes, without which the accident which actually happened would not have happened, and if the accident is one of the contributing causes, without which the injury which actually followed would not have followed,’ an employee is entitled to compensation.” Without encumbering the record with further citation of authorities, we h

1955Nicholson v. Roundup Coal Mining Co., supra [ 79 Mont. 358 , 257 Pac. 276 ], The rule declared in the last cited case is applicable here wherein it was said: “In this class of cases the English rule is that, ‘if it appears that the employment was one of the contributing causes, without which the accident which actually happened would not have happened, and if the accident is one of the contributing causes, without which the injury which actually followed would not have followed,’ an employee is entitled to compensation.” Without encumbering the record with further citation of authorities, we h

1941The principle is quite clearly expressed in the following cases by this court: Stackpole v. Hallahan, 16 Mont. 40 , 40 Pac. 80 , 28 L.

1941The principle is quite clearly expressed in the following cases by this court: Stackpole v. Hallahan, 16 Mont. 40 , 40 Pac. 80 , 28 L.

1941Bancroft v. Frear, 144 Wis. 79 , 128 N. W. 1068 , 140 Am.

1941Bancroft v. Frear, 144 Wis. 79 , 128 N. W. 1068 , 140 Am.

1934In such a case the defendant’s negligence is the proximate cause and he is liable.” (Beach on Contributory Negligence, 2d ed., 31, citing Day v. Crossman, 1 Hun (N. Y.), 570, 4 Thomp. & C. 122, Doggett v. Richmond etc. Ry., 78 N. C. 305 , Schierhold v. North Beach & M.

1934In such a case the defendant’s negligence is the proximate cause and he is liable.” (Beach on Contributory Negligence, 2d ed., 31, citing Day v. Crossman, 1 Hun (N. Y.), 570, 4 Thomp. & C. 122, Doggett v. Richmond etc. Ry., 78 N. C. 305 , Schierhold v. North Beach & M.

1920In the case of Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351 , 57 Pac. 924 , the court, following the Oregon court, said: “The courts of Michigan and Montana adhere to the former English rule, except when, the witnesses are too numerous * * * [citing several Michigan cases and the case of State v. Metcalf, supra].

1920In the case of Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351 , 57 Pac. 924 , the court, following the Oregon court, said: “The courts of Michigan and Montana adhere to the former English rule, except when, the witnesses are too numerous * * * [citing several Michigan cases and the case of State v. Metcalf, supra].

1920In the case of Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351 , 57 Pac. 924 , the court, following the Oregon court, said: “The courts of Michigan and Montana adhere to the former English rule, except when, the witnesses are too numerous * * * [citing several Michigan cases and the case of State v. Metcalf, supra].

1920In the case of Ross v. State, 8 Wyo. 351 , 57 Pac. 924 , the court, following the Oregon court, said: “The courts of Michigan and Montana adhere to the former English rule, except when, the witnesses are too numerous * * * [citing several Michigan cases and the case of State v. Metcalf, supra].

1920In the ease of State v. Barrett, 33 Or. 194 , 54 Pac. 807 , the court, after stating the English rule, says: "And in this country it is the rule, in Michigan and Montana, that the prosecuting officer is bound to show the res gestae, or entire transaction, by calling all the obtainable witnesses present at the time, unless it. appears that the testimony of those not called would be merely cumulative [citing Michigan cases and State v. Metcalf, supra].

1920In the ease of State v. Barrett, 33 Or. 194 , 54 Pac. 807 , the court, after stating the English rule, says: "And in this country it is the rule, in Michigan and Montana, that the prosecuting officer is bound to show the res gestae, or entire transaction, by calling all the obtainable witnesses present at the time, unless it. appears that the testimony of those not called would be merely cumulative [citing Michigan cases and State v. Metcalf, supra].

1909R. 9416/ as finally passed, contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled Act in the custody of the State Department.” But that Gardner v. Collector is not authority for the proposition to which it is frequently cited, and to which it is cited by relators in this case, is made plain by the same court; for when that case was cited in support of the contention that other evidence than the enrolled bill ought to be received to show that a section of the bill under consideration, as it passed the two houses, had been omitted in the enrollment, the court, in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark

1909R. 9416/ as finally passed, contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled Act in the custody of the State Department.” But that Gardner v. Collector is not authority for the proposition to which it is frequently cited, and to which it is cited by relators in this case, is made plain by the same court; for when that case was cited in support of the contention that other evidence than the enrolled bill ought to be received to show that a section of the bill under consideration, as it passed the two houses, had been omitted in the enrollment, the court, in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark

1909It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.” In Chicot County v. Davies , above, the court reviewed the authorities and quoted the language from Gardner v. Collector , above, as indicating the true rule, and then said that the courts may go back of the enrolled bill “to the legislative journals and the records and files in the office of the secretary of state”; but in Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559 , 11 S. W. 882, the same court, after expressing regret that there had been any departure from the English rule, said: “The courts are gravitating tow

1909It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.” In Chicot County v. Davies , above, the court reviewed the authorities and quoted the language from Gardner v. Collector , above, as indicating the true rule, and then said that the courts may go back of the enrolled bill “to the legislative journals and the records and files in the office of the secretary of state”; but in Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559 , 11 S. W. 882, the same court, after expressing regret that there had been any departure from the English rule, said: “The courts are gravitating tow

1909It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.” In Chicot County v. Davies , above, the court reviewed the authorities and quoted the language from Gardner v. Collector , above, as indicating the true rule, and then said that the courts may go back of the enrolled bill “to the legislative journals and the records and files in the office of the secretary of state”; but in Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559 , 11 S. W. 882, the same court, after expressing regret that there had been any departure from the English rule, said: “The courts are gravitating tow

1909It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.” In Chicot County v. Davies , above, the court reviewed the authorities and quoted the language from Gardner v. Collector , above, as indicating the true rule, and then said that the courts may go back of the enrolled bill “to the legislative journals and the records and files in the office of the secretary of state”; but in Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559 , 11 S. W. 882, the same court, after expressing regret that there had been any departure from the English rule, said: “The courts are gravitating tow

1909It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.” In Chicot County v. Davies , above, the court reviewed the authorities and quoted the language from Gardner v. Collector , above, as indicating the true rule, and then said that the courts may go back of the enrolled bill “to the legislative journals and the records and files in the office of the secretary of state”; but in Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559 , 11 S. W. 882, the same court, after expressing regret that there had been any departure from the English rule, said: “The courts are gravitating tow

1909It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.” In Chicot County v. Davies , above, the court reviewed the authorities and quoted the language from Gardner v. Collector , above, as indicating the true rule, and then said that the courts may go back of the enrolled bill “to the legislative journals and the records and files in the office of the secretary of state”; but in Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559 , 11 S. W. 882, the same court, after expressing regret that there had been any departure from the English rule, said: “The courts are gravitating tow

1883But in State v. Gasconade, 33 Mo., 102 , the court, for the purpose of avoiding a forfeiture, departed from it; otherwise it would have been adhered to.

1883But in State v. Gasconade, 33 Mo., 102 , the court, for the purpose of avoiding a forfeiture, departed from it; otherwise it would have been adhered to.

1883The English rule was followed in O’ Conner v. Towns, 1 Texas, 107 .

1883The English rule was followed in O’ Conner v. Towns, 1 Texas, 107 .

1882But this case was combatted and overruled by Chancellor Kent in King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns.

1882Ch. 562 . a There was a departure from the English rule on this subject in Paine v. Packard, 13 Johns. 175 , and in that case the surety was held to be discharged.