Cunningham v. Fuller
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Hopewell, J. cited, that the declarations of Duncan as to the ownership of the property should have been received: Dorsey v. Dorsey, 3 H. & J. [Md.], 506; Striclderv.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Hopewell, J. cited, that the declarations of Duncan as to the ownership of the property should have been received: Dorsey v. Dorsey, 3 H. & J. [Md.], 506; Striclderv. Todd, 10 S. & R. [Pa.], 63; Jaolcson v. Davis, 5 Cow. [N. Y.], 123; Bird v. Smith, 8 Watts [Pa.], 434; Waring v. Warren, 1 Johns. [N. Y.], 340; Ivat v. Finch, 1 Taunt. [Eng.], 142; Stewart v. Cheatham, 3 Yerg. [Tenn.], 60; Smith v. Montgomery’s Adm’rs, 5 Monroe [Ky.], 502; Forsyth v. Kreakbaum, 7 Id., 97; Guy v. Hall, 3 Murphy [N. Car.], 150 j Johnson v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
This is a contest over a building. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased the building for $1,300 and paid $100 in cash; the remaining $1,200 being debts against the building which he assumed; that the building had been used for a saloon, and the plaintiff designed to continue the use of it for that business; that one Eunis had been in the saloon before the plaintiff purchased it and one Duncan had an interest in the business, and the $1,200 were to be paid out of the receipts of the saloon, upon the payment of which Duncan was to own one-third of the building and Ennis…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Durham v. ShannonIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Campbell v. HollandNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by8 opinions
- Swengil v. MartinNebraska Supreme Court · 1933
- McDonald v. BowmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Gentry v. BurgeNebraska Supreme Court · 1935
- Omaha Street Railway Co. v. BoesenNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- Fuller v. CunninghamNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.