Nebraska Railway Co. v. Lett
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court for Lancaster county. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. The court erred in its instruction to the jury and in not instructing the jury as to the legal effects of the construction contract, as requested by plaintiff in error.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court for Lancaster county. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. The court erred in its instruction to the jury and in not instructing the jury as to the legal effects of the construction contract, as requested by plaintiff in error. Beatty v. Gates, 4 Ind., 154. Myer v. Midland P. B. B., 2 Neb., 339. Arctic Pire Ins. iJo. v. Austin, 69 N. Y., 470. The testimony shows that there is nothing to be done or that could be done as president after the road was turned over to the construction company, more than four years prior to filing of petition, except what was done…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
On the thirteenth day of December, 1875, the Brown-ville, Eort Kearney & Pacific Eailway Company and the Midland Pacific Eailway Company were consolidated, the new company taking the name of the Nebraska Eailway Company; In November, 1877, the defendant commenced an action against the Nebraska Eailway Company for the value of services rendered by him as president of the Brownville, Eort Kearney & Pacific Eailway Company from September 18, 1871, to October 18, 1875, in securing the right of way for and in aiding in the construction of said B., Et. K. & P. E. E. The defendant…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. PielstickerNebraska Supreme Court · 1929
- Waggoner v. First National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Roggenkamp v. HargreavesNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Cheney v. EberhardtNebraska Supreme Court · 1879
- Cheney v. WoodruffNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.