Standard Oil Co. v. Hoese
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Cedar county. Tried below before Norris, J. References: Tootle v. Mgutter, 14 Neb. 158; Riudge v. Judson, 24 N. Y. 64; Taussig v. Reid, 145 111. 488; Gates v. McKee, 13 N. Y. 232; Rice v. Loomis, 139 Mass. 302; 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 77; 'Wilcox v. Draper, 12 Neb. 138; Lawrence r.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Cedar county. Tried below before Norris, J. References: Tootle v. Mgutter, 14 Neb. 158; Riudge v. Judson, 24 N. Y. 64; Taussig v. Reid, 145 111. 488; Gates v. McKee, 13 N. Y. 232; Rice v. Loomis, 139 Mass. 302; 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 77; 'Wilcox v. Draper, 12 Neb. 138; Lawrence r. McOahnout, 2 How. [U. S.] 426; llargrcave v. Smee, 6 Bing. [Eng.] 244. References: Brandt, Suretyship & Guaranty [2d ed.] sec. 93; Bank of Commerce v. Selden, 3 Minn. 99; Selden v. Bank of Commerce, 3 Minn. 109; Osborne v. Slone, 30 Minn, 25; Levi v. Latham, 15 Neb. 509; 2 Daniel,…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
This action was brought on a written guaranty, and, a general demurrer of each of the defendants to the petition having been sustained, this error proceeding brings up for review the correctness of the ruling whereby the petition was held not to state a cause of action.
It is first urged by the defendants in error that the guaranty sued upon was signed by a partnership firm, and that as a firm it was incapable of becoming surety. The demurrers impliedly admitted the truthfulness of each averment of the petition, and therein it was alleged that the firm, as such, executed and delivered…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tootle v. ElgutterNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
- Wilcox v. DraperNebraska Supreme Court · 1881
- Klosterman v. OlcottNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nogg Bros. Paper Co. v. BickelsNebraska Supreme Court · 1989
- Tolerton & Stetson Co. v. BarckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Bradshaw v. SibertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916