Lunney v. Healey
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from tbe district court of Seward county. Tried below before Bates, J. References: Dent v. Poiecll, 61 N. W. Rep. [Ia.] 1043; Mattingly v. Pennie, 105 Oal. 514; Pearson v. Mason, 120 Mass. 53; Rice v. Mayo, 107 Mass. 550; Lore v. Miller, 53 In cl. 294; Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. St. 43; Nciclerlander v. Starr, 50 Kan. 766; Grcmer v.. Miller, 57 N. W. Rep. [Minn.] 318; Tansey v. Etzel, 34 Pac. Rep. [Utah] 291; Barber v. Hildebrand, 42 Neb. 406.
1Opinion of the Court
Irvine, O.
This was an action by Healey against Lunney to recover commissions as a real estate broker. The plaintiff recovered in the district court, and the defendant seeks a reversal of the judgment.
It is suggested that the petition does not state a cause of action, but the supposed defect is not pointed out in the briefs and we perceive none on examining the petition.
Error is assigned on the admission of certain evidence. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and errors, if any were made, in the admission of evidence are, therefore, not a ground of reversal.
The principal…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Love v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Leete v. NortonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
- Pearson v. MasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Love v. OwensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Barber v. HildebrandNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bentley v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Meagher v. ReeneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Reasoner v. YatesNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
- Van Norman v. FitchetteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Howell v. NorthNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.