Cortelyou, Ege & Vanzandt v. Hiatt
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Holt county. Tried below before IIopewele, J. The plaintiff nowhere alleges that she is or was at the time of the alleged conversion the owner or entitled to the possession of the note which she accuses the defendants of having wrongfully and unlawfully converted to their own use. The petition does not state a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Holt county. Tried below before IIopewele, J. The plaintiff nowhere alleges that she is or was at the time of the alleged conversion the owner or entitled to the possession of the note which she accuses the defendants of having wrongfully and unlawfully converted to their own use. The petition does not state a cause of action. (Cooley, Torts, secs. 442, 445; Smith v. Force, 16 N. W. Rep. [Minn.], 704; Bond v. Mitchell, 3 Barb. [N. Y.], 304; Wright v. Field, 64 How. Pr. [N. Y.], 117; Johnson v. Oregon Steam Navigation Co., 8 Ore., 35; Cage v. Allison, 1 Brevard…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
This action was brought by the defendant in error to recover for the conversion of a note, and on the trial of the cause the jury returned a verdict in her favor, upon which judgment was rendered. The first objection of the plaintiffs in error is that the petition fails to state a cause of action. The petition is as follows:
“1st. On or about the 2d day of September, 1885, Paris R. Hiatt executed and delivered to this plaintiff his promissory note, dated September 1, 1885, whereby he promised to pay the plaintiff on the 1st day of September, 1888, the sum of $3,800, with…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Collingwood v. Merchants BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
- Wilson v. RichardsNebraska Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. SternsNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- Whitney v. SpearmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1897