Polo Manufacturing Co. v. Parr
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court for Dixon county. 1. The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is against the weight of testimony given in this cause. The defendants plead payment, which is denied by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court for Dixon county. 1. The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is against the weight of testimony given in this cause. The defendants plead payment, which is denied by the plaintiff. The burden of proof is on the defendants, and they must prove by a clear preponderance of evidence the fact of the payment of said note, either to the plaintiff or to an agent of said plaintiff, duly authorized by plaintiff to receive payment thereof, in satisfaction of the same. 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 209 and 210, note f. Yates v. Ereckleton, 2…
1Opinion of the Court
Maxwell, Ch. J.
The plaintiff brought an action in the district court of Dixon county against the defendants, upon the following obligation: ■
“$142.50
“ Ponca, Neb., July 17, 1875.
“ For value received in one Polo harvester, No. 118, we, the subscribers of the' town of Ponca, county of Dixon, and state of Nebraska, promise to pay the Polo Manufacturing Co. or order $142.50, in Elk Point, D. T., on the first day of January, 1876, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum until paid, and if paid when due a deduction of ten per cent per annum. It is also stipulated that should suit be…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh v. McCallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Nowak v. Burke Energy Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1988
- Brock v. LuethNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
- Farmers Bank v. Johnson, King & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Seieroe v. First National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.