Sullivan v. Smith
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Seward county. Tried below before George W. Post, J. cited: Bur-rill on Assignments, 113. Collyer on Partnership, § 394. Story, § 101. Hicghes v. Ellison, 5 Mo., 463. Holland v. Drake, 29 Ohio State, 441. Heelan v. Hoagland, 10 Neb., 511. cited: Deekard v. Case, 5 Watts, 24. Kelly v. Baker, 2 Hilton, 531. Palmer v. Myers, 43 Barb., 509. Rwmery v. MoOullooh, 54 Wis., 565. National Bank v. Baekett, 2 Daly, 395.
1Opinion of the CourtReese, J.
This is an action of replevin instituted by the defendant in error, the assignee of Hennigen and Ashton, against the plaintiff in error, in the district court of Seward county. No replevin bond having been given, the property was returned to the defendant below, and the action was prosecuted as one for damages, under the provisions of section 193 of the civil code. The plaintiff in error, being the sheriff of Seward county, and having the property in his possession Under an order of attachment, released it to the attachment defendant, but a judgment having been after-wards rendered in favor…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Andrews' Heirs v. Brown's Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Rumery v. McCullochWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Heelan v. HoaglandNebraska Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- A. N. Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. PetersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Wright v. LeeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- Clark v. FleischmannNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Feltenstein v. SteinIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Horton, Gilmore, McWilliams & Co v. BloedornNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.