Traver v. Shaefle
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. cited, as to the admissibility of evidence : Dunbier v. Day, 12 Neb., 600; High v. Mieh.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. cited, as to the admissibility of evidence : Dunbier v. Day, 12 Neb., 600; High v. Mieh. Bank, 6 Id., 157; Oropsey v. Averill, 8 Id., 158; Hamilton v. Thrall, 7 Id., 219; Clark v. M. Co., 5 Id., 322; Mills v. Miller, 4 Id., 444; Delamater v. Chappel, 48 Md., 251; Knoblauch v. Kronschnabel, 18 Minn, 307. cited: Little v. Woodworth, 8 Neb., 281; Patrick v. Leach, Id., 530; Mayer v. Dean, 115 N. Y., 556; Briggs v. Hilton, 99 Id., 517; Chapin v. Dobson, 78 Id., 75; Hall v. Erwin, 66 Id., 649; Mead v. Bv/nn, 32 Id., 275.
1Opinion of the Court
Cobb, Ch. J.
The plaintiffs below, on June 4, 1888, commenced this action in the district court of Lancaster county, alleging that on February 25, 1888, they entered into a contract with the defendant, as party of the first part, stating that he had sold to them goods, wares, and merchandise of certain quality, kinds, and amounts, mentioned in an inventory and Exhibit A at a cost of $13,768, to be furnished by the plaintiffs at the marked price and all to be selected by the defendant. The plaintiffs were to pay for cooperage and cartage on the goods, delivered at defendant’s store in Lincoln,…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Luce v. FosterNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Reid v. BrechetNebraska Supreme Court · 1928
- Hensley v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1929
- Bauer v. WoodNebraska Supreme Court · 1943
- Scovel v. IshamNebraska Supreme Court · 1925
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.