Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. Callender
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Lincoln county. Tried below before Church, J. cited: Rudolph v. McDonald, 6 Neb., 165; Hilton v. Ross, 9 Id., 411; Connelly v. Edgerton, 22 Id., 89; Waples, At. & Gar., 167, 587; Wright v. Smith, 11 Neb., 343; Hiatt v. Bullene, 20 Kan., 557 ; Andreis v. Alcorn, 13 Id., 360; Howe Mach.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Lincoln county. Tried below before Church, J. cited: Rudolph v. McDonald, 6 Neb., 165; Hilton v. Ross, 9 Id., 411; Connelly v. Edgerton, 22 Id., 89; Waples, At. & Gar., 167, 587; Wright v. Smith, 11 Neb., 343; Hiatt v. Bullene, 20 Kan., 557 ; Andreis v. Alcorn, 13 Id., 360; Howe Mach. Co. v. Miner, 28 Id., 444; Kelly v.Dill, 23 Minn., 435; Wildermuth v. Kolnig, 41 O. St., 180; Bowlcer v. Collins, 4 Neb., 496; Selden v. Lane, 40 O. St., 345; Freeman, Ex., sec. 212a; State v. Townsend, 17 Neb., 530; Axtellv. Warden, 7 Id., 182; State v. Krumpus, 13 Id., 321.…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
On the 15th of September, 1890, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in the district court of ‘Eincoln county to recover the sum of $3,820 and interest on &■ promissory note. On the next day proceedings for an attachment were duly instituted and an attachment issued, which was returned, that the officer had been unable “to come at the property of M. Callender and O. N. Cal-lender, claimed to be in possession of J. C. Federhoof”; he served him with notice to appear and answer, etc. The garnishee appeared and answered, in substance, that he was in possession of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- First National Bank v. LancasterNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Mahon v. FansettNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
- Wilcox & Co. v. DeinesNebraska Supreme Court · 1930
- Scottsbluff National Bank v. PfeiferNebraska Supreme Court · 1934
- Van Kirk v. BeckleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1932