Nicholas v. John V. Farwell & Co.
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Eed Willow county. Tried below before Gaslin, J. cited: Anderson v. Hawhe, 3 N. E. Eep., 566. Hind’s Eevised Statutes of 111., 1852, p. 191, Secs. 11 and 12. G-arrish v. Seaton, 34 N. W. Eep., 485. cited: Martin v. Judd, 60 111., 78. Ritter v. Hoffman, 10 Pac. Eep., 576. Graft v. Clark, 38 Iowa, 237. Thomas v. Mueller, 106 111., 36. Sherman v. Bradely, 11 111., 622. Adam v. Arnold, 86 111., 185.
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
John V. Earwell et al., who sue in the name and style ■of John V. Earwell & Co., brought their suit in the district court of Eed Willow county against George W. Nicholas, defendant. The cause of action, as set out in the petition, is a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant, rendered in and by the circuit court of Stark county, in the state of Illinois, on the 15th day of May, 1878. It is further alleged in and by the said petition: 3. That the said defendant has resided in the states of Iowa and Nebraska all the time since the rendition of said judgment, and has not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Roundy v. HuntIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
- Rising v. BrainardIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Tessier v. Lockwood Englehart & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by7 opinions
- Crim v. CrimSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Cuykendall v. DoeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Hastings v. BushongCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Chappell v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Payne v. ClaffyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.