La Bonty v. Lundgren
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Cuming county. Tried below before Norris, J. When the jury retired they took with them into the jury . room without plaintiff’s consent, a note which had not been introduced in evidence. This was shown by affidavit to be prejudicial to plaintiff. The court erred in refusing a new trial for misconduct of the jury.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Cuming county. Tried below before Norris, J. When the jury retired they took with them into the jury . room without plaintiff’s consent, a note which had not been introduced in evidence. This was shown by affidavit to be prejudicial to plaintiff. The court erred in refusing a new trial for misconduct of the jury. (State v: Hartmann,. 46 Wis., 248; Proffatt, Jury Trials, secs. 392, 405; Town of Peacham v. Carter, 21 Yt., 515; Kruidenier v. Shields,. 77 la., 504.)
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
This is an action of ejectment commenced by Daniel F. La.Bonty to recover the possession of 160 acres of land, the northeast quarter of section 26, in township 21 north, of range 7 east, and in Cuming county, Nebraska. The petition is in the usual form, The answer is a denial of the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition, and further pleads as a defense that defendant purchased the lands in controversy from one John Kerkow during the year 1881, and received a warranty deed therefor, paying the sum of $1,000 as the consideration for said sale; that he made the purchase in good faith, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Whitney v. WhitmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Koehler v. ClearySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Thrall v. SmileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Munde v. LambieMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ogden v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1902
- The People v. HolcombIllinois Supreme Court · 1938
- State v. BoggsWashington Supreme Court · 1949
- La Bonty v. LundgrenNebraska Supreme Court · 1899