Reynolds v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Pound, J. The pre-emption contract, and payments and improvements under it, was not a mere option agreement to purchase. Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 111., 216. If it were, its terms had been waived and varied by the parties. The reply put in issue conditions precedent.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Pound, J. The pre-emption contract, and payments and improvements under it, was not a mere option agreement to purchase. Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 111., 216. If it were, its terms had been waived and varied by the parties. The reply put in issue conditions precedent. Birdsall v. Carter, 5 Neb., 517. Nichols v. Hail, 4 Neb., 214. Livesey v. Hotel, 5 Neb., 50. Kellogg v. Lavender, 9 Neb., 418. The question of waiver is one of fact. Page v. Greeley, 75 111,, 400. If vendor has disabled himself from conveying, purchase money and…
1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.
The action below was based upon an alleged breach, by the defendant, of a contract known as a “ pre-emption certificate,” issued by the company to the plaintiff on the 15th day of April, 1872. By the terms of this certificate the defendant bound itself to sell the land in controversy to the plaintiff, upon certain terms and conditions, to be embodied in a more formal contract, after the company had obtained its patent from the United States. This formal contract, it was stipulated, should be applied for by the purchaser within sixty days after receiving notice, which the company was to give,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hamilton v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- Wood, Curtis & Co. v. SeurichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Cash v. MeisenheimerWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Hale v. SheehanNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. CochranNebraska Supreme Court · 1894