Yorgensen v. Yorgensen
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Seward county. The opinion states the case. i/nter alia, contended that it was not necessary for plaintiff to have been in possession when the action was commenced, to entitle him to recover for the annual value of the use of the land. It was only necessary for the plaintiff to re-enter after the trespass was committed, to entitle him to recover.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Seward county. The opinion states the case. i/nter alia, contended that it was not necessary for plaintiff to have been in possession when the action was commenced, to entitle him to recover for the annual value of the use of the land. It was only necessary for the plaintiff to re-enter after the trespass was committed, to entitle him to recover. Rowland v. Rowlcmd, 8 Ohio, 40, 41. It was not necessary for the jury to find that the defendant forcibly entered and ousted the plaintiff to entitle the plaintiff to recover. For an unlawful entry, even if no force…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
On the eleventh day of October, 1875, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant in the probate court of Seward county to recover the sum of $475 damages, for the forcible entry upon, and use and occupation of the south-west quarter of section twenty-one, town twelve north, of range two east of sixth principal meridian, in Seward county, from the first day of March 1875 to the time of bringing suit. The petition alleges that at the time of defendant’s entry upon said lands and ever since, he (the plaintiff) has had the right to the possession of said premises, and that he was at…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Nelson v. JenkinsNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Butler v. SmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- Herbage v. McKeeNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Troxell v. JohnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Comstock v. ColeNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.