Barker v. Davies
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Merrick county. Tried below before Marshall, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. A defendant has the right to insist that all of the facts essential to the existence of a cause of action against him and in plaintiff’s favor be stated in the petition. (Bell v. Sherer, 12 Neb., 409; First Nat.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Merrick county. Tried below before Marshall, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. A defendant has the right to insist that all of the facts essential to the existence of a cause of action against him and in plaintiff’s favor be stated in the petition. (Bell v. Sherer, 12 Neb., 409; First Nat. Bank of Dorchester v. Smith, 36 Neb., 199.) If the defendant refused to take all the hay and straw, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for what was actually delivered and proper damages, if any, sustained for breach of the contract in declining to take the…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
This action was brought in the district court of Merrick county by the defendant in error to recover the purchase price of certain produce sold to, and the reasonable value of certain services performed for, the plaintiff in error. There was an answer by which there were denied the purchase and delivery of the hay and straw hereinafter referred to, and in addition, by way of counter-claim, there was alleged a payment of $96.05, as well as the existence of damages to the amount of $100, caused by the alleged failure by plaintiff in error to cut and properly put up certain hay. By reply…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Weideman v. Estate of PetersonNebraska Supreme Court · 1935
- Baker v. McDonaldNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
- Caproon v. MitchellNebraska Supreme Court · 1906