Simeon Farwell & Co. v. Cramer
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Holt county. Tried below before Norris, J. It is improper for the court to require counsel to prejudge the facts he expects to develop by a certain class of testimony, or for the court in any manner to indicate his idea of certain evidence proposed or offered.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Holt county. Tried below before Norris, J. It is improper for the court to require counsel to prejudge the facts he expects to develop by a certain class of testimony, or for the court in any manner to indicate his idea of certain evidence proposed or offered. (Thompson, Trials, secs. 218, 219; State v. Tided, 13 Nev., 502; People v. Bonds, 1 Nev., 33 ; McMinn v. Whelan, 27Cal., 300; State v. Harhin, 7 Nev., 381.) Instructions which have a tendency to single out isolated facts and confine the attention of the jury .to them to the exclusion of all other facts,…
1Opinion of the Court
Irvine, C.
D. L. Cramer was engaged in the mercantile business in-Ewing. He seems to have failed, and his stock of goods was seized and sold upon attachments or executions. The-defendant in error, the wife of D. L. Cramer, was at that time conducting a millinery establishment, and some time-after the sale of Mr. Cramer’s stock she moved her millinery goods into the store-room formerly occupied by Mr. Cramer, and shortly after began to add other lines of merchandise thereto until in the course of a few weeks she-seems to have established what is termed a “general store.” The plaintiffs in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- I. Oberfelder & Co. v. KavanaughNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Lynam v. McMillanNebraska Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hiatt v. KinkaidNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- City of Chadron v. GloverNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Cortelyou v. MabenNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Melick v. VarneyNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Allsman v. RichmondNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.