Legal Opinion

Stukenholtz v. Parriott

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1925No. 23020PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Redick, District Judge.. Action of replevin. Plaintiff took from defendant Parriott by writ of replevin certain hay and grain of the agreed value of $1,867, which represented the landlord’s share of the crop of certain land for the year 1919. Parriott was the tenant and made no claim to the crop, but answered that Fosh'ier claimed it, and Foshier was made defendant. The contest is between plaintiff and Foshier. A jury was waived and trial to the court resulted in a judgment for Foshier for return of the chattels or their value against plaintiff and Parriott, and plaintiff appeals.

The evidence…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Way v. RootMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Perkins v. PottsNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Wood v. IrvingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dixon v. O'CONNORNebraska Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Lee v. ShideNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API