Legal Opinion

Barrett v. Provincher

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1894No. 5141PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error from the district court of Fillmore county. Tried below before Morris, J. cited: Stinson v. Leary, 34 N. W. Eep. [Wis.], 63; Huntsman v. Fish, 30 N. W. Eep. [Minn.], 455; Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn., 51. cited: Marlow v. Lacy, 2 S. W. Eep. [Tex.], 52; Alford v. Halbert, 12 S. W. Eep. [Tex.], 75; Fortson v. Alford, 62 Tex., 580.

1Opinion of the Court

Eyan, C.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Fillmore county, Nebraska, by the plaintiff in error, John Barrett, as guardian of Alanson Barrett, against the defendant in error, for the recovery of $72.30 for work and labor performed by Alanson Barrett for the defendant. The record recites that during the cross-examination of plaintiff it was developed that Alanson Barrett, his ward, was dead, and that thereupon counsel for the defendant moved the court to dismiss the case for the reason that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue. The motion was sustained and the…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wallace v. HallowellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
  2. Bowden v. Jacksonville Electric Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1906
  3. City of Anadarko v. McKeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  4. Miller v. SheltonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  5. Armon v. CraigSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API