Maurer v. Miday
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Wakeley, J. cited: Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Peters, 221. Converse v. Shambaugh, 4 Neb., 376. Bates on Partnership, Sec. 17. Sail-o?'s v. Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 20 111. App., 509. McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo., 358-366. Nicholaus v. Thielges, 50 Wis., 491. Berthold, v. Cold,smith, 24 Howard, 536. Macy v. Combs, 15 Ind., 469. Griffith v. Buffum, 22 ~Vt., 181. Colwell v. Britten, 26 N. W. Rep., 538» Forsyth v.…
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Wakeley, J. cited: Rogers v. Batchelor, 12 Peters, 221. Converse v. Shambaugh, 4 Neb., 376. Bates on Partnership, Sec. 17. Sail-o?'s v. Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 20 111. App., 509. McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo., 358-366. Nicholaus v. Thielges, 50 Wis., 491. Berthold, v. Cold,smith, 24 Howard, 536. Macy v. Combs, 15 Ind., 469. Griffith v. Buffum, 22 ~Vt., 181. Colwell v. Britten, 26 N. W. Rep., 538» Forsyth v. Woods, 11 Wall., 484. Fox v. Abbott, 12 Neb., 330. Bazell v. Belcher, 31 Ohio St., 572. Leach v. Mil-burn Wagon Co., 14…
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
The plaintiffs brought their action against the defendant, alleging in their petition the sale and delivery to him of' five barrels of Gibson rye whiskey, of the value of $429.64, for which payment had not been made, and demanding judgment therefor.
Defendant answered, denying each and every allegation of the petition. For a second defense he alleged that thewhiskies sued for were spirituous liquors, and that at that time the plaintiffs had not taken out license for the sale of malt, spirituous, or vinous liquors, as required by the-laws of the state of Nebraska; that therefore the alleged…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dieter v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- Ford Motor Co. v. LivesaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Fields v. DanenhowerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Stephens v. HardingNebraska Supreme Court · 1896