Blomgren v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 06 May 1896 |
| Citation | 67 N.W. 186,48 Neb. 240 |
| Parties | BLOMGREN v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Evidence, although conflicting, held to sustain the verdict and judgment complained of.
2. Evidence of collateral facts, corroborative of the statements of parties with respect to the principal contention, is confined to such transactions as shed some real light upon the question at issue. As a rule, the circumstances surrounding the parties, their relations towards each other, and the subject of the controversy at the time of the transaction involved, are proper subjects of proof.
3. In an action to recover for services rendered under a special contract, the defense alleged was that such services were, by agreement, performed as an equivalent for the plaintiff's board and lodging during the period named. Evidence that, on or about the date of the agreement alleged by the defendant, a third person, in his (defendant's) presence and hearing, offered to employ the plaintiff at substantial wages for work of the same general character, was rightly admitted as bearing upon the reasonableness of the plaintiff's claim, and in some degree corroborative of the plaintiff's testimony.
Error to district court, Burt county; Ferguson, Judge.
Action by Gust Anderson against John Blomgren. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Uriah Bruner, for plaintiff in error.
H. H. Bowes, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error was permitted to recover in the district court of Burt county for work and labor performed under an alleged special agreement. According to the allegations of his petition, he labored for the defendant therein (plaintiff in error) three months, to wit, during the months of December, 1891, and January and February, 1892, at the agreed rate of $20 per month. The answer consists of a general denial, and an allegation that the services claimed for were by agreement rendered as an equivalent for the plaintiff's board and lodging, during the months above named. Evidence was adduced by the parties in support of their respective contention; that of the plaintiff below being sufficient, when tested by the rules applicable to proceedings in error, to sustain the verdict and judgment in his favor.
The record, however, presents another question, the solution of which is attended with more difficulty. The plaintiff below was, over the objection of the defendant, permitted to prove, as a part of his case in chief, that one Johnson, a neighbor, about the time of the alleged agreement, to wit, December 1, 1891, offered to employ him (plaintiff) to husk corn at $1.25 per day, saying that he then had 90 acres of corn to gather, which offer was made in the presence and hearing of the defendant. That proof, it is argued, should have been rejected as wholly collateral to the matter in dispute, and as tendering a false issue, the effect of which was necessarily to mislead and prejudice the minds of the jurors against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...element of remoteness would not be so important and controlling as in the former. “The rule,” says Post, C. J., in Blomgren v. Anderson, 48 Neb. 240, 242, 67 N. W. 186, 187, in speaking of the admission of testimony as to collateral facts corroborative of the principal contention of the par......
-
Smith v. State
...the element of remoteness would not be so important and controlling as in the former. "The rule," says POST, C. J., in Blomgren v. Anderson, 48 Neb. 240, 242, 67 N.W. 186, in speaking of the admission of testimony as to facts corroborative of the principal contention of the parties to a cas......
-
Furlong & Meloy v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. of Edinburg & London
... ... admissible, although they do not directly affect the rights ... of the parties. Kocher v. Palmetier, 112 Iowa 84, 83 ... N.W. 816; Blomgren v. Anderson, 48 Neb. 240 (67 N.W ... 186); Platner v. Platner, 78 N.Y. 90; Parker v ... Coburn, 10 Allen 82 ... IV. The ... ...
-
Furlong v. N. British & Mercantile Ins. Co. of Edinburg & London
...although they do not directly affect the rights of the parties. Kocher v. Palmetier, 112 Iowa, 84, 83 N. W. 816;Blomgnen v. Anderson, 48 Neb. 240, 67 N. W. 186;Platner v. Platner, 78 N. Y. 90;Parker v. Coburn, 10 Allen (Mass.) 82. 4. The objection to the introduction in evidence of the Melo......