Fall v. Glover
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Gage county. Tried below before Broad y, J. cited, contending that the excluded testimony was competent: Bliss, Code PI., sec. 347; Dobson v. Pearce, 12 N. Y., 156; Grimes v. Sherman, 25 Neb., 848; 1 Jones, Mort., secs. 285, 287, and cases cited; Id., sec. 288, cases cited in note 6; Anthony v. Anthony, 23 Ark., 479; Piercer.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Gage county. Tried below before Broad y, J. cited, contending that the excluded testimony was competent: Bliss, Code PI., sec. 347; Dobson v. Pearce, 12 N. Y., 156; Grimes v. Sherman, 25 Neb., 848; 1 Jones, Mort., secs. 285, 287, and cases cited; Id., sec. 288, cases cited in note 6; Anthony v. Anthony, 23 Ark., 479; Piercer. Robinson, 13 Cal., 116; Schade v. Bessinger, 3 Neb., 140; Wilson v. Richards, 1 Id., 342; Doroin v. Jennings, 4 Id., 97. cited: Mills v. Miller, 4 Neb., 444; Clark v.R. Co., Id., 469; Tracy v. Drahos, 6 Id., 11; Hamilton v. Thrall, 7 Id.,…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
This action was brought in the court below on a promissory note for the sum of $75, with interest at ten percent from January 4, 1888.
The defendants'below (plaintiffs in error) in their answer *523admit the making of the note, but allege “that after January 4, 1888, the defendants sold and conveyed the premises described in said petition to this plaintiff, subject to a loan defendants had put thereon of $1,500, bearing nine per cent interest, which said loan was secured by mortgages on said premises and subject to the taxes thereon for the year 1887, that became due and delinquent…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wells v. AufrechtNebraska Supreme Court · 1914
- Jarnagin v. EdwardsArizona Supreme Court · 1921