Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. Neville
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Cass county. Tried below before Chapman, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. If the goods were on the premises of defendant in error without his consent, and he was injured thereby, his remedy is in tort, and not on contract. (Durrell v. Emory, 9 Atl. Rep. [N. H.], 97; Dixon v. Ahern, 14 Pac. Rep. [Nev.], 598; Lathrop v. Standard Oil Go., 9 S. E. Rep. [Gfa.], 1041; Dcpere Go. v. lieynen, 22 N. W. Rep. [Wis.], 761; United States Mfg.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Cass county. Tried below before Chapman, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. If the goods were on the premises of defendant in error without his consent, and he was injured thereby, his remedy is in tort, and not on contract. (Durrell v. Emory, 9 Atl. Rep. [N. H.], 97; Dixon v. Ahern, 14 Pac. Rep. [Nev.], 598; Lathrop v. Standard Oil Go., 9 S. E. Rep. [Gfa.], 1041; Dcpere Go. v. lieynen, 22 N. W. Rep. [Wis.], 761; United States Mfg. Go. v. Stevens, 17 N. W. Rep. [Mich.], 934.)
1Opinion of the Court
Ragan, C.
One F. A. Burke, from March, 1889, until January, 1891, was a dealer in agricultural implements in the city of Plattsmouth, Nebraska. In addition to his own prop*575erty he had for sale on commission implements of various manufacturing companies, — among others, the Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Company. Burke conducted his business and kept his merchandise in a building which he leased of one William Neville. Burke’s lease on this building expired April 1, 1891, up to which time he settled with Neville for the rent thereof. Burke, some time prior to that date, surrendered the key of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Preston v. NealeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1858
- Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. NevilleNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Garbark v. NewmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
- G. A. Crancer Co. v. CombsNebraska Supreme Court · 1914