Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Gustin
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. ■The reply should have been stricken from the files.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. ■The reply should have been stricken from the files. (O’Leary v. Ishey, 12 Neb., 136; Courtnay v. Price, Id., 189; Dillon v. Russell,■ 5 Id., 488; Williams v. Evans, f> Id., 218; Maxwell, PI. & Pr., 108; Durbin v. Fisk, 16 O. St., 534.) As to other points: Savage v. Aiken, 21 Neb., 610; Moore v. Besse, 30 Cal., 570; Smith v. Weage, 21 Wis., 442'; Harris v. Harris, 10 Id., 468; Vaughn v. R. Co., 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 41; Hill v. R. Co., Id., 21; Sumner v. R. Co., Id., 18 ; Little Rock R. Co. v. Daniels, 32 Id., 479;…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch- J.
The defendant in error brought an action in replevin against the plaintiff in error, in the county court of Lancaster county, to recover the .possession of certain goods. The case was appealed to the district court, and as a point is made on the pleadings, it becomes necessary to set them out. The petition is as follows:
“The above named plaintiff complains of the above named defendant, and for cause of action says that he is the owner of, and entitled to the immediate possession of, the following described goods and chattels, to-wit: one box of iron castings, of a weight of 125…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Normand v. NormandNebraska Supreme Court · 1911