Legal Opinion

Western Cornice & Manufacturing Works v. Meyer

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1898No. 8211PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error from tbe district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Keysor, J.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, C. J.

Tbe plaintiff commenced this action before a justice of tbe peace in Douglas county, and alleged in tbe bill of particulars that tbe defendant, and others impleaded as defendants, and each of them, were “indebted to tbe plaintiff for wort, labor, and material furnished at defendant’s special instance and request” in a stated sum. Tbe plaintiff was successful, and tbe cause was appealed to the district court, where, in tbe petition filed, tbe asserted cause of action was set forth in tbe same language as in tbe inferior court. Of some portions there were somewhat more specific statements, and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Spurgin v. ThompsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Hoagland v. Van EttenNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Hoagland v. Van EttenNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Clarke v. Omaha & Southwestern RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Darner v. DaggettNebraska Supreme Court · 1892

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Miller Rubber Products Co. v. AndersonNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Baxter v. MaccabeesNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Marodolac v. UheNebraska Supreme Court · 1925
  4. N. Westover & Co. v. Van Dorn Iron Works Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API