Oskamp v. Gadsden
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Clarkson, J. Gadsden’s testimony is irrelevant, and hearsay or derivative.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Clarkson, J. Gadsden’s testimony is irrelevant, and hearsay or derivative. (Stevens, Dig. of E.v., art. 62.) To hold Gadsden’s testimony competent is contrary to public policy, for the following reasons: (a.) Since it was repetition of the language of another, that language might not have been correctly repeated, either through original misapprehension, subsequent failure of memory, or willful misrepresentation. (6.) The statements testified to were made by a person who was neither under the obligations of an oath, nor subject…
1Opinion of the CourtNor val, J.
Plaintiffs in error brought suit in the court below to recover damages for the alleged breach of contract by the de*9feud ant in his refusing to deliver a quantity of hay claimed to have been purchased by them from him. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered.
In 1888 plaintiffs were engaged in the city of Omaha in the flour, feed, grain, and hay business. Defendant resided at Schuyler, and had about 150 tons of baled hay which he desired to sell. Prior to the middle of April of that year plaintiffs and defendant had some correspondence about the purchase and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wolfe v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Globe Printing Co. v. StahlMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Sullivan v. KuykendallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1885
3Cited by8 opinions
- Darling v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- Brindley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Theisen v. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- McCarthy v. PeachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Heckman v. DavisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.