Hartwig v. Gordon
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Gage county. . Tried below before Appelget, J. The instructions should be applicable to the evidence introduced on the trial. It is error to disregard this rule. (Oity of Lincoln v. Holmes, 20 Neb., 47; Stough v. Stefani,. 19 Id., 468; Ballard v. State, Id., 619; Meredith, v. Kennard, 1 Id., 319; Neihardt v. Kilmer, 12 Id., 38; Republican V. R. Co. v. Finh, 18 Id., 92.) Instructions should be in writing. (Ch. 19, secs. 52, 56, Comp.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Gage county. . Tried below before Appelget, J. The instructions should be applicable to the evidence introduced on the trial. It is error to disregard this rule. (Oity of Lincoln v. Holmes, 20 Neb., 47; Stough v. Stefani,. 19 Id., 468; Ballard v. State, Id., 619; Meredith, v. Kennard, 1 Id., 319; Neihardt v. Kilmer, 12 Id., 38; Republican V. R. Co. v. Finh, 18 Id., 92.) Instructions should be in writing. (Ch. 19, secs. 52, 56, Comp. Stats.; Republican V. R. Co. v. Arnold, 13 Neb., 488.)
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
This is an action commenced by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the sum of $98.60, balance due on a bill of merchandise sold to the defendant in error. Trial was had and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the district court. The defendant answered the petition of the plaintiff, admitted the claim of the plaintiff, and for further answer set up a counter-claim against the plaintiff' in the sum of $250, moneys which he claimed to be due him on account of failure of a warranty of title to certain saloon fixtures which he alleged in his answer he purchased…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Swengil v. MartinNebraska Supreme Court · 1933
- Dow v. LeggNebraska Supreme Court · 1930
- Omaha Street Railway Co. v. BoesenNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Whitehall v. Commonwealth Casualty Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1933
- Hoover v. De KlotzNebraska Supreme Court · 1911