Eldridge v. Hargreaves
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. cited: Dale v. JJunneman, 12 Neb., 225; Peck v. Trumbull, Id., 136; Stewart v. Balderston, 10 Kan., 344-5; Yassear v. Livingston, 13 N. Y., 249; Bliss, Code PI., secs. 367, 431; Swan v. Swan, 15 Neb., 453. cited : Maxwell, PI. & Prac., 393; 1 Sutherland, Damages, 277; Brizsee v. Maybee, 21 Wend. [N. Y.],.144; Masterson v. Mayer, 7 Hill [N. Y.], 61; Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn., 99; Young v. Fdley, 19…
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before Field, J. cited: Dale v. JJunneman, 12 Neb., 225; Peck v. Trumbull, Id., 136; Stewart v. Balderston, 10 Kan., 344-5; Yassear v. Livingston, 13 N. Y., 249; Bliss, Code PI., secs. 367, 431; Swan v. Swan, 15 Neb., 453. cited : Maxwell, PI. & Prac., 393; 1 Sutherland, Damages, 277; Brizsee v. Maybee, 21 Wend. [N. Y.],.144; Masterson v. Mayer, 7 Hill [N. Y.], 61; Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn., 99; Young v. Fdley, 19 Neb., 543.
1Opinion of the CourtNor val, J.
This suit was brought by the plaintiffs in error to recover the sum of $1,203.90, with interest thereon, for 350 cases, and fifty kegs of orange cider, sold and delivered to the defendants. The defendants filed the following answer:
*640“For answer to plaintiffs’ petition herein, defendants admit that on or before the 12th day of July, 1887, he entered into contract with plaintiffs for the purchase of goods mentioned in plaintiffs’ petition, and that he agreed to pay for the same the sum of $1,203.90 on the 11th day of October, 1887; that said goods were delivered, and that the same are not paid…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Boice v. PalmerNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Callen v. RoseNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Hanover Fire Insurance v. StoddardNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Ramsey v. JohnsonWyoming Supreme Court · 1899
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. RobertsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.