Howard v. Stewart
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Kearney county. Tried below before Gaskin, J. A substituted party comes into a suit subject to all the disabilities of him whose place he takes. (Hi & T. Cen. R. Co. v. Shirley, 111 U. S., 358 j Cable v. Ellis, 110 Id., 389; Pirie v. Toedt, 115 Id., 41; Sloane v. Anderson, 111 Id., 236; Young v. Parker, 132 Id., 267; L. & N. R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 Id., 599; Ohlquist v. Harwell, 13 Fed. Rep. [Ia.], 305; Thouron v. R. Co., 38 Fed.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Kearney county. Tried below before Gaskin, J. A substituted party comes into a suit subject to all the disabilities of him whose place he takes. (Hi & T. Cen. R. Co. v. Shirley, 111 U. S., 358 j Cable v. Ellis, 110 Id., 389; Pirie v. Toedt, 115 Id., 41; Sloane v. Anderson, 111 Id., 236; Young v. Parker, 132 Id., 267; L. & N. R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 Id., 599; Ohlquist v. Harwell, 13 Fed. Rep. [Ia.], 305; Thouron v. R. Co., 38 Fed. Rep. [Tenn.], 673; Gilson v. Bruce, 108 U. S., 561; Phelps v. Oaks, 111 Id., 236.) If the interests of the other parties are so…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
In July, 1889, the plaintiff filed a petition in the district court of Kearney county against the defendants to recover the sum of $5,000 for the wrongful conversion of a stock of goods. The defendants answered by a general denial. In October, 1889, E. M. Ensfield & Co. filed a petition to intervene as follows:
*768“ Comes now E. M. Ensfield & Co., and shows to the court that they recovered a judgment in the circuit court of the United States, district of Nebraska, against Warren D. and A. S. Howard, doing business as Howard Bros., for the sum of $695 and costs, in an action pending…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Batchers' Union Slaughter-House Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Cable v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hurst v. CobbDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1894