Sanborn & Follett v. Hale
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Madison county. Heard below before Barnes, J, The opinion states the case. cited sec. 129, Civil Code. Swan’s Pleadings, 181. Ohio Life Inswrmce Go. v. Goodwin, 1 Handy, 81. Memphis v. Newton, 2 Handy, 165. cited B. & M.B. B. v. Dick & Son, 7 Neb., 242, Bliss on Code Pleading, sections 282, 233, 306, 307.
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The plaintiffs in the firm name brought an action against the defendants, in the district court of Madison *319county, to recover the sum of $250.00, interest and costs, upon a promissory note. Afterwards they filed an amended petition, to which the defendant demurred, ■upon the ground that the facts stated therein were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and the action dismissed. The following is a copy of the petition:
“Amended petition in the district court of Madison county, Nebraska.
Luther C. Sanborn and Judson L. Follett, doing business at Sioux City,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Null v. JonesNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Church v. D. R. Callihan & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- A. H. Andrews & Co. v. School DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Meyer v. Omaha Furniture & Carpet Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1906