H. Birdsall, Son & Co. v. Carter
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to tbe district court of Cass county. The action was founded on two promissory notes. Defense, that notes were given in consideration of a threshing machine which the plaintiffs sold and delivered to defendants, with certain warranties accompanying the sale, etc.; that the machine did not work as warranted, whereby defendants were damaged, etc.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe district court of Cass county. The action was founded on two promissory notes. Defense, that notes were given in consideration of a threshing machine which the plaintiffs sold and delivered to defendants, with certain warranties accompanying the sale, etc.; that the machine did not work as warranted, whereby defendants were damaged, etc. Trial below before Pound, J., and a jury, resulted in a verdict for defendants, and plaintiffs brought the case up upon a petition in error.
1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.
The first error assigned goes to the instructions given to the jury. The assignment is in these words, viz.: “ That the said court erred in the instructions given to the' jury in the trial of the said cause.” "We have frequently held that assignments similar to this were too indefinite to be considered. And recently, in the case of Tagg v. Miller, 10 Neb., 442, it is said that “If the whole charge were bad, such-general assignment would be sufficient; but not being so, the particular portions complained of should have been distinctly pointed out.” That rule is applicable to this assignment.
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tagg v. MillerNebraska Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hiatt v. KinkaidNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- City of Chadron v. GloverNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- J. I. Case Plow Works v. Niles & Scott Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Esterly Harvesting Machine Co. v. FrolkeyNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- McGrew Machine Co. v. One Spring Alarm Clock Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.