¶1I am unable to concur with my brethren in the conclusion they have reached in this case. It does not seem to me that the testimony, shows that the plaintiffs in error had such a common purpose with Spahr, to do an illegal act, or such a cooperation with him, as to render them responsible for the unintentional and purely accidental injury resulting from the act of Spahr. I think the judgment ought to be reversed.
15 Kan. 563
Williams v. Townsend
Decided July 15, 1875
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1875-07-15
jError from Allen District Court. Townsend brought his action to recover damages sustained by him by reason of an alleged trespass to his person. The injury was actually committed by one of three, all of whom were sued jointly. A separate trial was had as to two — Williams and Parsons, plaintiffs in error. The transcript contains the following as the “special verdict” returned by the jury: “1.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1875-07-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2002
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →