Dodge v. Kiene
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Grope, J. cited: Code, secs. 99, 565; Shelton v. French, 33 Conn., 489; Wills v. Willets, 35 111., 88; Armstrong v. Spears, 18 Ohio St., 373. The rule excluding parol evidence applies only to the language of the contract; surrounding circumstances are proper to be considered in order to understand the intention of the parties.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Grope, J. cited: Code, secs. 99, 565; Shelton v. French, 33 Conn., 489; Wills v. Willets, 35 111., 88; Armstrong v. Spears, 18 Ohio St., 373. The rule excluding parol evidence applies only to the language of the contract; surrounding circumstances are proper to be considered in order to understand the intention of the parties. (1 Greenl., Ev., secs. 275-7; Very an v. Mc-Gregor, 23 Cal., 339; Facey v. Otis, 11 Mich., 216.) The evidence complained of is simply rebuttal of that introduced by plaintiff, and cannot be assigned as…
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
This cause is brought to this court on error from the district court of Douglas county.
The plaintiff brought this action in the court below for the failure of defendant to accept and pay for 600 hogs, according to the terms of the following agreement and guaranty:
“South Omaha, Neb., April 5th, 1887.
“ I hereby agree to deliver to F. G. Kiene, at Wood River, Nebraska, between the 15th of May and the 15th of June, 1887, at buyer’s option, six hundred hogs, to weigh from 275 lbs. upwards and to average 300 lbs., at $5.25 per hundred. Said F. G. Kiene to call for delivery of all or any part of…
2Cited by12 opinions
- State v. CoffmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1987
- Clarke v. KelseyNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Sylvester v. Carpenter Paper Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Te Poel v. ShuttNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Conley v. HaysNebraska Supreme Court · 1951
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.