Legal Opinion

Kirk v. Bowling

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Mitchell, J. cited : Austin v. Cambridgeport, 21 Pick., 224. Stearns v. Harris, 8 Allen, 598. Dale v. Hunneman, 12 Neb., 221:

1Opinion of the Court

Maxwell, Ch. J.

This is an action of ejectment brought by Bowling against Kirk to recover the possession of the north half of the south-east quarter of section twenty-six, township eight, range five east.

Kirk, in his answer, denies that Bowling has a legal estate in said land, or is entitled to the possession thereof, *261and also pleads the statute of limitations as a bar. On the trial of the cause in the court below a verdict was rendered in favor of Bowling, upon which judgment was rendered.

The testimony shows that Joab Hobbs entered the land in question, and received a patent from the United…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jackson ex dem. Jenkins v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
  2. Inhabitants of Dublin v. ChadbournMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
  3. Whitman v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Case of Wells' WillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1824
  5. Brown v. LanmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1816

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Jorgensen v. CrandellNebraska Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Hans v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Neher v. ArmijoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Williams v. Coal Creek Mining & Manufacturing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Smith v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1904

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API