Walton v. Campbell
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The warrantor did not have sufficient notice of the pending action, and is not bound by the adjudication.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The warrantor did not have sufficient notice of the pending action, and is not bound by the adjudication. (Rawle, Covenants [ed. 1887], secs. 119, 120; Somers v. Schmidt, 24 Wis., 417; Paul As the law does not grant a recovery for a contingent liability, no interest is recoverable unless mesne profits have actually been paid to the holders of the paramount title. (Cheney v. Straub, 35 Neb., 526; Rawle, Covenants [ed. 1887], sec. 196; Burton v. Reeds, 20 Ind., 91; Wacker v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
In the record of this case we find a copy of a petition and of an answer which purport to have been filed in the county court, as well as in the district court, of Lancaster county. In the caption of each of these pleadings there occur the Avords “In the county court of Lancaster county, Nebraska.” There is nothing to show that there ever was a judgment in the aforesaid county court with respect to the issues presented by said pleadings; neither does it appear that the case tried in the district court, and sought to be reviewed in this court, was a continuation *791of, or in any way…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ferrea v. ChabotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Scott v. TwissNebraska Supreme Court · 1875
- Hersey v. LongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Cummings v. HarrisonMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Cheney v. StraubeNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. PieskiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Cott v. JacklinUtah Supreme Court · 1924
- Pauley v. KnouseNebraska Supreme Court · 1923
- Troxell v. StevensNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Morris v. DallNebraska Supreme Court · 2026