Bryant v. Thesing
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of York county. Tried below before Wheeler, J. See opinion for statement of the case. The contracts and orders were in writing and should control. They cannot be contradicted by oral testimony. (Zucker v. Karpeles, 50 N. W. Rep. [Mich.], 373; Strange v. Wilson, 17 Mich., 341; Clark v. Tennant, 5 Neb., 549; Western Ins.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of York county. Tried below before Wheeler, J. See opinion for statement of the case. The contracts and orders were in writing and should control. They cannot be contradicted by oral testimony. (Zucker v. Karpeles, 50 N. W. Rep. [Mich.], 373; Strange v. Wilson, 17 Mich., 341; Clark v. Tennant, 5 Neb., 549; Western Ins. Co. v. Putnam, 20 Neb., 331; Addison, Contracts [Morgan’s ed.], secs. 359-363; Swain v. Semens, 9 Wall. [U. S.], 272; Benjamin, Sales [4th Am. ed.], 216; Schultz v. Bradley, 57 N. Y., 646.)
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The plaintiff declared, in the petition filed in the district court of York county, upon two orders for nursery stock, including quite a number of apple and other fruit trees, alleging sale and delivery, and also that the prices charged were the reasonable prices and values of the trees, etc. The amount claimed was $105 and interest. The defendant answered and admitted signing the orders for the nursery stock, and except such admission denied each and every allegation contained in the petition, and further stated as follows: “And for further answer herein defendant alleges that prior to and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barnett v. PrattNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v. Roquette Bros.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Campbell v. C & C Motor Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1946
- Hutchings v. BinfordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Bland & Fisher Lumber Co. v. ScanlanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Columbia River Door Co. v. H. F. Cady Lumber Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1914