Frey v. Drahos
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Cuming county. Tried below before Barnes, J. cited Bromham v. Martín, 8 Cent. Law Journal, 357. 7 Wait’s Actions and Defenses, 592, Heslcet v. Faivcet, 11 M. & W., 356. 2 Chit. Plead. (16th Am. Ed.), 469, 470. Lanier v. Trigg, 6 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 641. Besancon v. Shirty, 9 Id., 45. Fuller v. Felton, 16 Ohio, 457. Raymond v. Bernard, 12 Johns., 274. cited Me Qlellan v. Marshall, 19 Iowa, 561.
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
The plaintiff in error makes several points upon the admission of testimony by the court below and the striking from the bill of exceptions of the return of the execution. But if there was error in any of these proceedings it was error without prejudice, as in my view of the case none of the acts complained of could in any event have been material in controlling the final disposition of the case. The first made is that “the facts set forth are not sufficient in law to maintain the action, &e.” But the plaintiffs nowhere in their brief point out in what respect the petition fails in its facts,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Frey v. DrahosNebraska Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by6 opinions
- Capital Lumbering Co. v. LearnedOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Leeper, Graves & Co. v. First Nat. Bank of HobartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Jarecki Manufacturing Co. v. FlemingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Bates & Co. v. StanleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Reavis v. HornerNebraska Supreme Court · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.