Baker v. Meisch
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Dakota county. Tried below before Norris, J. Defendants admit in the stipulation that they willfully entered upon plaintiff’s premises; hence they could acquire no rights to the bricks manufactured thereon. (2 Kent, Com., 363; Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns. [N. Y.], 348 [4 Am.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Dakota county. Tried below before Norris, J. Defendants admit in the stipulation that they willfully entered upon plaintiff’s premises; hence they could acquire no rights to the bricks manufactured thereon. (2 Kent, Com., 363; Betts v. Lee, 5 Johns. [N. Y.], 348 [4 Am. Dec., 368]; Curtis v. Groat, 6 Johns. [N. Y.], 168; Silsbury v. Mo Goon, 3 N. Y., 379; Wells on Replevin, secs. 79, 80, ‘81, 89, 567 ; Nesbitt v. St. Paul Lumber Co., 21 Minn., 491; 111. & St. L.B. Co. v. Ogle, 92 111., 353; Snyder v. Vaux, 2 Rawle [Pa.], 453; Freeman v. Underwood, 66 Me., 229;…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This is an action of replevin brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the possession of 150,000 brick of the value of $6.50 per M upon the ground that they had been manufactured from clay belonging to the plaintiff and that the defendant Meisch willfully and wrongfully appropriated said clay. The case was tried upon a stipulation of facts as follows :
“ 1st. That the plaintiff,/A. L. Baker, is the absolute *230owner in fee simple of the north ten acres of lot 3, section-21, township 29, range 9 east, in Dakota county, Nebraska, from and on which the brick in question were…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Kirby Lumber Co. v. Temple Lumber Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1935
- State v. La FolletteOregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Carpenter v. LingenfelterNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Maier v. LuceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Louis Werner Stave Co. v. PickeringCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.