Legal Opinion

Boyesen v. Heidelbrecht

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1898No. 8391PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error from the district court of Jefferson county. Tried below before Bush, J.

1Opinion of the Court

Irvine, C.

This was an action by Boyesen, claiming as a purchaser for value, before maturity, of a note made by Heidelbrech't to the Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Company. The defense was that the note was one of three given in payment for a harvesting machine; that, the machine had been sold with a warranty; that by the terms of the contract, if the machine failed to comply with the warranty, it might, under certain conditions, be returned and the contract rescinded; that the machine did not comply with the warranty, the conditions had been complied with, the machine returned and the contract…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. C. Aultman & Co. v. ReamsNebraska Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Dern v. KelloggNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. HallNebraska Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Standiford v. M. H. Green & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Haslam v. BargeNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Larsen v. SanzieriNebraska Supreme Court · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API