Van Housen v. Broehl
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of York county. Tried below before Bates, J. The answer does not sufficiently plead accord and satisfaction as a defense, because it fails to state that the property delivered to plaintiff was of any value, and because it fails to allege that plaintiff received the property in satisfaction of the claim against defendant.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of York county. Tried below before Bates, J. The answer does not sufficiently plead accord and satisfaction as a defense, because it fails to state that the property delivered to plaintiff was of any value, and because it fails to allege that plaintiff received the property in satisfaction of the claim against defendant. (Davis v. Holcas, 3 J. J. Marsh. [Ky.] -494; Young v. Jones,- 64 Me. 563; Gushing v. Wyman, 44 Me. 121; Sheets v. Russell, 40 N. E. Rep. [Ind.] 30.) References: 1 Ency. PI. & Pr. 77, 79; Bailey v. Goioles, 86 111. 333; Weehs v. Zimmerman, 4 N. Y.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ragan, C.
Ferdinand-Yan Housen sued Herman Broehl in the district court of York county upon a promissory note. As a defense to the action Broehl alleged in his answer that when he gave the note he secured its payment by a chattel mortgage upon .five head of horses owned by him; that the payee of said note sold and delivered the same to one Henry Yan Housen,"Sr.; that while he was the owner of said note the defendant, at his request, delivered to him the five head of horses covered by the chattel mortgage, “with the express understanding and agreement between said Henry Yan Housen, Sr., and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goble v. American National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Bailey v. CowlesIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Crilly v. RuyleNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Frederick v. MoranNebraska Supreme Court · 1911