Dundas v. Chrisman
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Nemaha county. Tried below before Appelget, J. cited: Pomr. Eq., Secs. 823,836,837. Loomis v. Armstrong, 29 N. W. Rep., 870. LCee v. Kee, 2 Gratt., 117. Betters v. Fanoell, 13 N. W. Rep., 319. Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Oliio St., 357. Allen v. Clark, 2 Blackf., 343. Oliver & Baum v. Bray, 4 Ohio, 193. Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kas., 392. Darrah v. Boyce, 29 N. W. Rep., 102. cited: Loose-more v. Smith, 12 Neb., 343. Kirk v. Bowling, 20 Neb., 263.…
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Nemaha county. Tried below before Appelget, J. cited: Pomr. Eq., Secs. 823,836,837. Loomis v. Armstrong, 29 N. W. Rep., 870. LCee v. Kee, 2 Gratt., 117. Betters v. Fanoell, 13 N. W. Rep., 319. Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Oliio St., 357. Allen v. Clark, 2 Blackf., 343. Oliver & Baum v. Bray, 4 Ohio, 193. Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kas., 392. Darrah v. Boyce, 29 N. W. Rep., 102. cited: Loose-more v. Smith, 12 Neb., 343. Kirk v. Bowling, 20 Neb., 263. Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 580. Rogers v. Redick, 10 Neb., 332. State v. Meeker, 19 Neb., 450. Pomr. Eq. Jur., Yol. 3,…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The plaintiff brought an action in the district court of Nemaha county to enjoin the collection of a certain claim against the estate of David Chrisman. A demurrer to the petition was sustained in the court below, and the action dismissed.
The cause of the action is set forth in the petition, as-follows: “ The plaintiff states that he is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of David Chrisman, deceased, and was acting as such at the time of the happening of the things herein complained of; that on the-30th day of June, 1887, defendant filed a claim in the-sum of $588.08 in the probate…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Horn v. QueenNebraska Supreme Court · 1875
- Horn v. QueenNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Benjamin v. BushNebraska Supreme Court · 1911
- Morris v. MullOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Hunter v. HunterNebraska Supreme Court · 1935