Lent v. B. & M. R. R.
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court' for Saunders county. Tried below before Post, J. contended there was a waiver of the forfeiture of the contract, and whether there was or not was a question for the jury. Dilleber v. Insurance Go., 76 N. Y., 570. Prentice v. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y., 483. Insurance Co. v. French, 30 Ohio St., 240. A non-suit should not have been granted. , Sutton v. Wauwatoosa, 29 Wis., 33. Grant v. Cropsey, 8 Neb., 209. State Ins. Co. v. Todd, 83 Pa. St., 272.
1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.
This case in principle is not distinguishable from that of Reynolds v. The B. & M. R. R. Co., ante p. 186, decided at this term. And much of what we said in deciding that case is applicable here. In this case, however, a formal contract had actually been made for the sale and purchase of the land in question, which contained stringent provisions, making, as counsel for the plaintiff concede, punctuality of payment essential, and, unless waived by the defendant, constituting a complete bar to a recovery of the damages sought.
To show precisely the ground on which counsel for the plaintiff stand…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Phelps v. Illinois Central RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Green v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by7 opinions
- Boone v. TemplemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Texas Co. v. Pensacola Maritime Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1922
- True v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Cash v. MeisenheimerWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Clifford v. FleshmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.