Lindsey v. Heaton
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. Even had there been a promise to pay there was no consideration.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. Even had there been a promise to pay there was no consideration. (Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Mete. [Mass.], 396; Morrissey v. Kinsey, 16 Neb., 17; Langdon v. Richardson, 58 la., 610; Easter v. White, 12 O. S., 219; Rose v. O’Linn, 10 Neb., 364.) As to the doctrine of original and collateral promises: Olopper v. Poland, 12 Neb., 70; Fitzgerald v. Morrissey, 14 Id., 201; Orawford v. Edison, 45 O. S., 239 ; Birchell v. Neaster, 36 Id., 331. There is no privity of contract between the parties, as the evidence shows that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Reese, Ch. J.
This is a proceeding in error to the district court of Lancaster county. It was alleged in the petition in that court that on the 13th day of May, 1887, defendant in error sold and delivered to' plaintiff in error one burial case, robe, and box, and- furnished certain livery and per*664formed certain labor under an oral contract between plaintiff and defendant for which plaintiff in error agreed to pay to defendant in error the sum of $100, and upon which plaintiff in error had paid the sum of $20 and no more, leaving due and unpaid the sum of $80, for which, with interest, judgment…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Waldock v. First Nat. Bank of IdabelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Learn v. UpstillNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- King v. SchmallNebraska Supreme Court · 1953
- Union Loan & Savings Ass'n v. JohnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1929
- Barras v. Pomeroy Coal Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1893