Hendrix v. Boggs
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for .Sarpy county. Tried below before Nevii,le, J. cited: 2 Wharton’s Ev., § 1278. Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S., 238. Carroll v. Carroll, 60 N. Y., 123. Carver v. Jackson, 4 Peters, 1, 83. Jones v. Sherman, 56 Miss., 599. Miller v. Hurford, 13 Neb., 13. Haller v. Blaco (dissenting opinion), 10 Neb., 40. cited: Taylor v. Courtnay, ante p. 190. 1 Greenleaf Ev., § 550. 3 Wash.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for .Sarpy county. Tried below before Nevii,le, J. cited: 2 Wharton’s Ev., § 1278. Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S., 238. Carroll v. Carroll, 60 N. Y., 123. Carver v. Jackson, 4 Peters, 1, 83. Jones v. Sherman, 56 Miss., 599. Miller v. Hurford, 13 Neb., 13. Haller v. Blaco (dissenting opinion), 10 Neb., 40. cited: Taylor v. Courtnay, ante p. 190. 1 Greenleaf Ev., § 550. 3 Wash. Real Prop., 684. Newman v. Jenkins, 10 Pick., 516. Cwnningham v. Smith, 70 Penn. State, 450. Tisdall v. Ins. Co., 28 Iowa, 12.
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This is an action of ejectment brought by Boggs against Hendrix to recover the possession of certain real estate in Sarpy county. Hendrix in his answer claims the land under a tax deed dated April 24th, 1877, and possession thereunder for more than three years. On the trial of the cause, however, no such deed was offered in evidence, but one dated January 25th, 1881, upon a sale which took place on the sixth of November, 1878. The deed was excluded, and judgment entered in favor of Boggs.
The errors relied upon in the brief of the plaintiff will be considered-in their order:
1st. Boggs claims…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Richards v. GayhartNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
- Lammers v. ComstockNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
- Seaman v. ThompsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1884