Houck v. Gue
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Groff, J. cited, as to directing the verdict: Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H., 230 ; Inloes v. Bank, 11 Md., 173; Way v. B. Co., 35 la., 587; Ellis v. Ins. Co., 4 O. St., 628; Johnson v. B. Co., 18 Neb., 696; Aullman v. Stout, 15 Id., 586; A. & N. B. Co. v. Baity, 11 Id., 332; Deitrich v. Hutchinson, 20 Id., 52. As to the right of argument: Code, sec. 283; Douglas v. Hill, 29 Kan., 527.
1Opinion of the CourtNorval, J.
These causes being alike in the facts, by consent were tried together. The defendant in error Gue sued the plaintiff in error Houck and one Alexander Benham in the district court to recover the sum of $274 and interest, claimed to be due him for keeping and boarding eight head of horses. The cause was tried to a jury, with a verdict and judgment in favor of Gue and against both Houck and Benham. In the second case Hurley sued Houck and Benham to recover $240 and interest for care and board of seven' horses. The verdict and judgment in the case were against both defendants. In each case Houck…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Douglass v. HillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Hall v. VanierNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hickman v. LayneNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Suiter v. Park National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- Oregon Short Line Railroad v. HallockUtah Supreme Court · 1912
- Weller v. HilderbrandtSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Campanelli v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.