Legal Opinion

Hull v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1887PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to tbe district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Hayward, J.

1Opinion of the CourtReese, J.

This was an action in ejectment instituted in the district court of Lancaster county for the possession of lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 of block No! 70 of the city of Lincoln. Upon a trial in that court judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the possession of lots 14 and 17 and in favor of defendant for lots 15 and 16. Plaintiff in error, being dissatisfied with the finding of the trial court as to the latter described lots, seeks a review thereon by proceedings in error. The defendant has filed a cross-petition in error, *374and seeks a reversal of • the judgment in so far as its right to…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ewing v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Pierpoint v. Town of HarrisvilleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Walbrunn v. BallenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  5. Lovell v. FrostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Robinson v. Southern California Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Blakely v. Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. MontgomeryNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Lantry v. WolffNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Oldig v. FiskNebraska Supreme Court · 1897

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API