Funke v. Allen
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, C. J.
The plaintiffs in error were dealers in crockery and queensware in Lincoln and at the solicitation of a traveling salesman for defendants in error, a firm dealing in crockery and queensware in Philadelphia and New York, delivered to him a written order for a future shipment by the latter firm to the former of twenty toilet sets. Subsequently there was some correspondence between *408the two firms relative to the order and the goods, the subjects of its terms, in the course of which it is claimed by plaintiffs in error there was a cancellation or renunciation of the order. After this is claimed to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- T. B. Scott Lumber Co. v. Hafner-Lothman Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Lincoln Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. SheldonNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Hale v. George H. Hess & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Todd v. GambleNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- E. Keeler Co. v. SchottSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by10 opinions
- S. Spiegal & Son v. AlpirnNebraska Supreme Court · 1921
- Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co. v. Buckstaff Bros. Manufacturing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Thomas D. Murphy Co. v. Exchange National Bank of HastingsNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Gate City Cotton Mills v. Rosenau Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Allaire, Woodward & Co. v. Perfection Remedy Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.