Beels v. Globe Land & Investment Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1913
• Docket Number: 17,175
• Citation: 141 N.W. 812,93 Neb. 733
• Parties: ESTERLINE BEELS, APPELLEE, v. GLOBE LAND & INVESTMENT COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

141 N.W. 812

93 Neb. 733

ESTERLINE BEELS, APPELLEE, v. GLOBE LAND & INVESTMENT COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS

No. 17,175

Supreme Court of Nebraska

May 17, 1913

APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: WILLIAM A REDICK, JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

A. P Lillis, H. P. Leavitt and Charles E. Foster, for appellants.

Henry E. Maxwell and George L. Davis, contra.

FAWCETT J. BARNES, SEDGWICK and HAMER, JJ., not sitting.

OPINION

FAWCETT, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in the district court for Douglas county against the Globe Land & Investment Company, a corporation engaged in the business of buying, selling and exchanging land for itself and as agent for others, and John L. Maurer and William J. Hartman, its president and secretary, respectively, to recover damages arising out of an exchange of real estate between plaintiff and one C. A. Campbell, which was alleged to have been caused by the false and fraudulent representations of President Maurer and Secretary Hartman, while acting for their company. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $ 3,000, and from a judgment thereon defendants appeal.

By their eighth assignment defendants allege error in a number of instructions given by the court on its own motion; but, as this assignment is not discussed in the brief, it must be treated as waived. The eighteenth assignment, that the verdict is excessive, was not presented in the motion for a new trial, and cannot be considered. It is urged in the tenth assignment that a new trial should have been granted upon defendants' supplemental motion for a new trial. Neither the supplemental motion nor the affidavit in support thereof appears in the abstract, and cannot be considered.

We have carefully read the abstract and additional abstract, and are unable to find any errors in the admission or rejection of evidence. The case was submitted to the jury upon instructions which respond to the pleadings and the evidence. The whole case turned upon the credibility of the witnesses. Plaintiff and her husband testified to facts and circumstances, and statements made by Maurer and Hartman to them, which, if true, justify the verdict returned by the jury. Their testimony is squarely controverted at every point by defendants Maurer and Hartman. Outside of these four parties, very few witnesses were introduced on either side, none of whom was present at the time when plaintiff and her...