propriety rule in Montana

1927Co., 50 Mont. 481 , 148 Pac. 330 , a question was suggested as to the propriety of applying the rule in any case except where the amount of the excess can be accounted for by resort to mathematical calculations based upon some error in the standard adopted by the jury — a rule which prevails in a few jurisdictions — but the question before us then was not res integra in this state.

1927Co., 50 Mont. 481 , 148 Pac. 330 , a question was suggested as to the propriety of applying the rule in any case except where the amount of the excess can be accounted for by resort to mathematical calculations based upon some error in the standard adopted by the jury — a rule which prevails in a few jurisdictions — but the question before us then was not res integra in this state.

1987We believe on the other hand, that where the tortious act is established, it is better that the tortfeasor should be subject to paying more than his theoretical share of the damages in a situation where the tortious conduct has contributed to the confused situation making it difficult to prove which tortious act did the harm.” Callihan, 654 P.2d at 976 , quoting Azure, 596 P.2d at 470-471 .

1987We believe on the other hand, that where the tortious act is established, it is better that the tortfeasor should be subject to paying more than his theoretical share of the damages in a situation where the tortious conduct has contributed to the confused situation making it difficult to prove which tortious act did the harm.” Callihan, 654 P.2d at 976 , quoting Azure, 596 P.2d at 470-471 .

1979The first case in which the issue was presented was Beeler v. Butte & London Copper Development Co. (1910), 41 Mont. 465 , 110 P. 528 .

1979The first case in which the issue was presented was Beeler v. Butte & London Copper Development Co. (1910), 41 Mont. 465 , 110 P. 528 .

1978State v. Murphy (977), 174 Mont. 307 , 570 P.2d 1103, 1105 .

1978State v. Murphy (977), 174 Mont. 307 , 570 P.2d 1103, 1105 .

1917(Murphy v. Nett, 51 Mont. 82 , L.

1914Breen v. Toole, 32 Mont. 4 , 79 Pac. 403 , we do not question the propriety of the rule that previous notice by the proper authority is not necessary to render a general election valid.

1914Breen v. Toole, 32 Mont. 4 , 79 Pac. 403 , we do not question the propriety of the rule that previous notice by the proper authority is not necessary to render a general election valid.

1907Dec. 262 ; Gans v. Williams, 62 Ala. 41 ); and there is still another line of decisions in which it has been sought to uphold the propriety of the rule by holding that the increase which was in gestation at the execution of the mortgage was inferentially included therein as a part of the mortgaged property.

1907(Funk v. Paul, 64 Wis. 35 , 54 Am.

1895In tins particular the case of Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6 , is in point.