Crawl v. Harrington
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Buffalo county. Tried below before Hamer, J. cited: Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo., 221 — 226; Moore v. Kent, 37 la., 20. cited: Peed v. Whitney, 7 Gray' [Mass.], 533; Lobdell v. Hayes, 4 Allen [Mass.], 186; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. EL, 296; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 19 Me., 144; Beebe v. Lyle, 73 Mich., 114; WhitaeJcer v. Vansehoiaek, 5 Ore., 113; Farnum v. Loomis, 2 Id., 29; Cornog v. Cornog, 3 Del.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Buffalo county. Tried below before Hamer, J. cited: Duke v. Brandt, 51 Mo., 221 — 226; Moore v. Kent, 37 la., 20. cited: Peed v. Whitney, 7 Gray' [Mass.], 533; Lobdell v. Hayes, 4 Allen [Mass.], 186; Hopkinson v. Dumas, 42 N. EL, 296; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 19 Me., 144; Beebe v. Lyle, 73 Mich., 114; WhitaeJcer v. Vansehoiaek, 5 Ore., 113; Farnum v. Loomis, 2 Id., 29; Cornog v. Cornog, 3 Del. Ch., 414; Bush v. Bush, 5 Id., 144; Latham v. MeLain, 64 Ga., 320; Woodhull v. Reid, 1 Har. [N. J.], 128 ; Hamilton v. Hughes, 6 J. J. Mar. [Ky.], 581; Heed v. Ford, 16 B. Mon.…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This is an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of the covenant of warranty. A demurrer was sustained to the petition and the plaintiff not being able to amend, the action was dismissed.
The petition is as follows :
“ Now comes the plaintiff and for cause of action against ■defendant alleges:
“I. That the state of Nebraska being by virtue of an act of congress the owner of lot No. 16, 8. E. J school section addition to Kearney Junction, now city of Kearney, Buffalo county, Neb., on the 3d day of-June, 1874, at public sale, in accordance with the laws of said state, sold •said lot of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Cutler v. MeekerNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- Grandjean v. BeylNebraska Supreme Court · 1907
- Hall v. CrabbNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
- Moran v. CatlettNebraska Supreme Court · 1913
- Nortnass v. Pioneer Townsite Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.