Barber v. Hildebrand
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. Everything talked of before the written contract was signed was merged in that contract, and the court erred in allowing witnesses to testify, over plaintiff’s objections, to matters previously discussed. (2 Parsons, Contracts, pp. 679, 680; Kainv.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tibbets, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. Everything talked of before the written contract was signed was merged in that contract, and the court erred in allowing witnesses to testify, over plaintiff’s objections, to matters previously discussed. (2 Parsons, Contracts, pp. 679, 680; Kainv. Old, 2 Barn. & C. [Eng.], 627; Mumford v. M’Pherson, 1 Johns. [N. Y.], 414; Hamilton v. Thrall, 7 Neb., 210; Mills v. Miller, 4 Neb., 441; Dodge v. Kiene, 28 Neb., 216.) The contract between the two principals was binding in…
1Opinion of the Court
Irvine, C.
Barber and Fowler, the plaintiffs in error, sued Julia A. Hildebrand and Fred Hildebrand, her husband, for $250, alleged to have been earned by the plaintiffs as brokers in effecting an exchange of real estate for the defendants. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants which the plaintiffs seek to reverse. Thirty errors are assigned. In argument the plaintiffs in error do not treat them separately, but discuss several general propositions, to one or another of which each of the assignments of error relates. "We shall pursue the same course.
Mrs. Hildebrand was the owner…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Lunney v. HealeyNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Greusel v. DeanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Webb v. DurrettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Connor v. RigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Bell v. StedmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.