Slade v. Swedeburg Elevator Co.
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Saunders county. Heard below before Bates, J. In cases of contract for the payment of a sum of money the payment of a less sum will not be a good satisfaction unless it was paid before due, or upon some other new and valid consideration.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Saunders county. Heard below before Bates, J. In cases of contract for the payment of a sum of money the payment of a less sum will not be a good satisfaction unless it was paid before due, or upon some other new and valid consideration. (2 Greenleaf, Evidence, sec. 28; Bishop, Contracts, sec. 50; Price v. Treat, 29 Neb., 544; Abbott v. Royce, 3 N. Y. Supp., 503; Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. Knowlton, 42 Minn., 229.) cited: Pulliam v. Taylor, 50 Miss., 257; Bull v. Bull, 43 Conn., 465; Preston r. Grant, 34 Vt., 203.
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
This action was brought by the appellant in the district court of Sauuders county, Xebraska, to enforce a claim for a balance alleged to be due from appellee to appellant for constructing its elevator. The contract for the erection was oral, and, as would naturally be expected, there exists a’conflict of evidence as to its terms and conditions. The *601answer alleged that the elevator was very defectively constructed, and that it was not completed as agreed, and that, therefore, the elevator company refused to pay the amount to which appellant would have been entitled upon full compliance…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Treat v. PriceNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Crilly v. RuyleNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
- Geeslin v. Knight Brothers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
- Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance v. PetersonNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.