Richardson Drug Co. v. Teasdall
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. Defendants intermingled the goods conditionally sold with those afterward purchased. It was impossible for plaintiffs to separate the new goods from those originally sold. Defendants failed to identify the goods purchased by them subsequent to the conditional sale. Plaintiffs, therefore, were entitled to recover' the entire stock.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. Defendants intermingled the goods conditionally sold with those afterward purchased. It was impossible for plaintiffs to separate the new goods from those originally sold. Defendants failed to identify the goods purchased by them subsequent to the conditional sale. Plaintiffs, therefore, were entitled to recover' the entire stock. See People v. Bristol, 35 Mich., 29; Ereth v. Rogers, 7 S. E. Eep. [N. Car.], 683; Willard v. Rice, 11 Met. [Mass.], 493; Adams v. Wildes,…
1Opinion of the CourtNorval, J.
This was replevin of a stock of merchandise. A verdict, under the directions of the district court, was entered in favor of the defendants, and the judgment rendered thereon was reversed by this court: See Richardson Drug Co. v. Teasdall, 52 Nebr., 698. The cause was subsequently tried in the court below, and a verdict returned as follows:
“Richardson Drug Company and the Lincoln Paint & Color Company, Corporations organized under the Laws of the State of Nebraska, Plaintiffs, v. Alice M. Teasdall and Thomas L. Teasdall, Defendants.
“We, the jury impaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Home Fire Insurance v. JohansenNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Clark v. OldhamNebraska Supreme Court · 1958
- Moran v. CatlettNebraska Supreme Court · 1917
- Clark v. OldhamNebraska Supreme Court · 1958
- Clark v. OldhamNebraska Supreme Court · 1958