Legal Opinion

Carlos v. Hastings Independent Telephone Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1912No. 16,685Published

Appeal from tbe district court for Adams county: George F. Corcoran, Judge.

1Dissent 1

Filed. June 25, 1912.

2Dissent · HamerHamer, J.

I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. A statement touching the facts and evidence is contained in that opinion. It appears that the plaintiff brought an action to recover an alleged unpaid balance of $200 on his salary. He sought to recover for his services for the eight months from April to November, 1906. He recovered upon a trial to a jury a judgment for $241.45. The majority opinion holds that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. It is said in that opinion that “plaintiff did not sue upon a quantum meruit, but upon a contract.” Whether he…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parcell v. McComberNebraska Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Small v. PoffenbargerNebraska Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Burkholder v. BurkholderNebraska Supreme Court · 1888

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API