Crowell v. Harvey
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Howard county. Tried below before Harrison, J. cited, as to the motion to make more definite: Louisville, eto., Canal Co. v. Murphy, 9 Bush [Ky.], 522; Pomeroy, Remedies, secs. 529 — 31; Maxwell, PI. & Pr., pp. 73, 85, 203. cited, as to the affidavit for new trial: Qorache v. Hintz, 13 Neb., 397,and citations; Maxwell, PI. & Pr., 440; Hilliard, New Trials, sec. 38.
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This action was brought in the district court of Howard county by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. Issue was joined in 1887, and a jury impaneled and sworn in that year to try the cause. The probability of a protracted and expensive trial seems to have induced the parties to consent to the withdrawal of a juror and continuance of the case. , Afterwards the parties, by agreement, referred the matter in controversy to J. A. Haggart *571to examine the abstract books and report to the court; the entry being “and this cause was continued to the 9th day of January, 1888, to be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McGinnity v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1917