Eiseley v. Malchow
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to tbe district.court for Dodge county. The facts are as follows: In 1873 Levi and Andrew Baker, partners, bought of the firm of Case & Co.' a threshing machine, for which they gave their notes, amounting to about $600. These notes came into the possession of 'William Malchow, who had acted as the agents of Case & Co. in making the sale of the machine to the Bakers.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe district.court for Dodge county. The facts are as follows: In 1873 Levi and Andrew Baker, partners, bought of the firm of Case & Co.' a threshing machine, for which they gave their notes, amounting to about $600. These notes came into the possession of 'William Malchow, who had acted as the agents of Case & Co. in making the sale of the machine to the Bakers. Malchow employed one Reynolds to collect the amount due on the notes, and Reynolds, carrying out that object, entered into an agreement with the Bakers, by which he was to take from them certain property, including the…
1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.
The objection that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict cannot be sustained. There is really no substantial conflict of testimony, and it shows very clearly, we think, that before the levy of the execution upon it as the property of Levi Baker, to satisfy his individual debt, the machine had been sold by him and his brother Andrew, who owned it in company, to the defendant in error, in part payment of an “indebtedness which they had contracted some months before in the purchase of this identical machine. This fact, too, is practically conceded, as the testimony of the witnesses…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dixon v. DukeIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Palmer v. WitcherlyNebraska Supreme Court · 1883