Legal Opinion

Coquillard v. Hovey

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1888PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Pound, J. 2 Parsons Cont., 15. Stan' v. Earle, 43 Ind., 478. Jones v. Ritter, 32 Tex., 717. Green v. Thornton, 4 Jones Law, 230. Ware v. Adams, 24 Maine, 177. Crist v. Burlingame, 62 Barb., 351. Davis v. Stone, 131 Mass., 384. Walrath v. Thompson, 4 Hill, 200. Brady ¡y. Cassiday, 104 N. Y., 147. Detroit Savings Bank v. Zeigler, 13 N. W. R., 496. Wier Plow Co. v. Walmsley, 11 N. E. R., 232.

1Opinion of the Court

Reese, Ch. J.

An action was instituted in the district court, in which plaintiff in his petition alleges that, on the 23d day of March, 1878, the defendants were partners under the firm name of Hovey & Traphagen, in Nebraska, and as such firm were engaged in selling agricultural implements, and that upon said date defendants executed, in writing, a guarantee of payment of all notes and evidences of indebtedness taken pursua it thereto by defendants, as the agents of plaintiff. The sales were to be made and the notes taken in the course of the agency of defendants, to be then given by plaintiff…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Etting v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
  2. First National Bank v. . DanaNew York Court of Appeals · 1879

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. King v. HansonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
  2. O'Connor v. West Sacramento Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Meyer v. ShameNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Rosenthal v. OgdenNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Haskell v. ReadNebraska Supreme Court · 1903

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API