Estabrook v. Hughes
Nebraska Supreme Court
This was an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment rendered against him in the Douglas county district court. The cause was heard below upon plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer of the defendant Hughes, which was overruled and cause dismissed. As there is nothing in the issue relating to estoppel, the court cannot consider it. Estabrook v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Neb., 76., Fryes, ex rd., v. The Lexington Big Sandy JR. R. Co., 2 Met.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment rendered against him in the Douglas county district court. The cause was heard below upon plaintiff’s demurrer to the answer of the defendant Hughes, which was overruled and cause dismissed. As there is nothing in the issue relating to estoppel, the court cannot consider it. Estabrook v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Neb., 76., Fryes, ex rd., v. The Lexington Big Sandy JR. R. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.), 823-4. If considered by the court we say an estoppel must be certain, precise, and clear. Ley oye v. Primm, 3 Mo., 529. Rich v. Hotchkiss, 16 Conn., 409. Must be…
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
The case as made by the answer as amended, and which, for the purposes of this opinion, are admitted to be true by the demurrer, may be stated in a few words.
On the nineteenth day of October, 1871, the plaintiff was the owner of a certain lot in Omaha. One Haudbine and wife owned certain buildings situated on said lot. On that day a lease was executed between the plaintiff and the said Ilaudbine, whereby the plaintiff leased to Haudbine the said lot by metes and bounds, for the term of three years from the first day of January then next ensuing, at a certain rent therein speci*499fled, to be paid…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hanover Fire Insurance v. GustinNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Spencer v. Commercial Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
- Farmer v. PittsNebraska Supreme Court · 1922
- Young v. Consolidated Imp. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1901
- Hiatt v. TomlinsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1918