Barras v. Pomeroy Coal Co.
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. A promise by Chidester & Barras to pay orders given by Mr. Johnson in favor of Pomeroy Coal Company would not take the case out of the statute of frauds; and if made as stated by plaintiff, would only be collateral. .(Manley v. Geagau, 105 Mass., 445; Preston v. Young, 46 Mich., 103; Foster v. Napier, 74 Ala., 393; Wills v. Ross, 77 Ind., 1; Langdon v.…
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. A promise by Chidester & Barras to pay orders given by Mr. Johnson in favor of Pomeroy Coal Company would not take the case out of the statute of frauds; and if made as stated by plaintiff, would only be collateral. .(Manley v. Geagau, 105 Mass., 445; Preston v. Young, 46 Mich., 103; Foster v. Napier, 74 Ala., 393; Wills v. Ross, 77 Ind., 1; Langdon v. Richardson, 58 la., 610; Welch v. Marvin, 36 Mich., 59; Cole v. Hutchinson, 34 Minn., 410; Vaughn v. Smith, 22 N. W. Rep.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ragan, C.
The Pomeroy Coal Company sued Charles F. Barras and William J. Chidester in the district court of Lancaster county, and in their petition alleged: “The plaintiff complains of the defendants and for cause of action alleges that the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $161.77 on account of goods and material sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendants at their special instance and request.”
Barras & Chidester answered as follows: “The said defendants, in answer to the petition of the plaintiff, say that at the time the plaintiff alleges that it sold the certain…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lindsey v. HeatonNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
- Waters v. ShaferNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Union Loan & Savings Ass'n v. JohnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1929