Stuht v. Sweesy
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Hopewell, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The alleged contract not being in writing is void. (PitMn v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Barb. Oh. [N. Y.], 221; Selden v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Go., 29 N. Y., 634; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. [N. Y.], 381; Bonnelli v. Blalcemore, 5 So. Rep. [Miss.], 22S; Rice v. Roberts, 24 Wis., 461; Knight r. Beenlcen, 30 Pa. St., 372; Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Hopewell, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. The alleged contract not being in writing is void. (PitMn v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Barb. Oh. [N. Y.], 221; Selden v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Go., 29 N. Y., 634; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. [N. Y.], 381; Bonnelli v. Blalcemore, 5 So. Rep. [Miss.], 22S; Rice v. Roberts, 24 Wis., 461; Knight r. Beenlcen, 30 Pa. St., 372; Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf. Oh. [N. Y.], 73; May v. Prendergast, 2 Pa. Dist. Ot. Rep., 613; Price v. Lien, 84 la., 590; Morgan v. Bergen, 3 Neb., 209;…
1Opinion of the Court
In vine, 0.
Sweesy brought an action against Stuht, alleging in his original petition that Stuht was, in 1888, the owner of the north one-third of lot 5, in block 169, in the city of Omaha, and that Pauline Chapman was the owner of the south two-thirds of that lot; that there was executed and delivered by said persons a written agreement whereby a party Wall was to be maintained on the division line between their said lots. A copy of this contract was attached to the petition. It is unnecessary here to set out its terms beyond the facts that it provided that the party first having occasion to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stephens v. HardingNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by13 opinions
- Love v. Kirkbride Drilling & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Robert J. Parmenter, an Individual Roger Parmenter, an Individual Parmenter Brothers, a Partnership v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Separate Corporate Capacity, William Houston, Jr. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Separate Corporate Capacity, John Leider v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Separate Corporate CapacityCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. WilhelmNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Covey v. HenryNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- Kuhn v. PooleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.