Connolly v. Giddings
| Decision Date | 24 April 1888 |
| Citation | 37 N.W. 939,24 Neb. 131 |
| Parties | DANIEL CONNOLLY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. EDWIN GIDDINGS AND C. D. B. EISAMAN, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Holt county. Tried below before TIFFANY, J.
AFFIRMED.
Uttley Benedict & Sisley, for plaintiff in error, cited: 3 Parsons on Contracts, 7 Ed., p. 34, notes u, v, and i, and 36, notes g and q. Peters v. Jones, 35 Iowa 512. Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Secs. 559, 560, 561, and 788. Ecke v. Fetzer, 26 N. W. Rep., 266. Bailie v Rodway, 27 Wis. 172. Jones on M., 339. Freidder v Darring, 59 Barb., 651. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 36 Conn. 177. McAusland v. Pundt, 1 Neb. 211. Taylor's Landlord and Tenant (8 Ed.), Secs. 180, 629, 708. Binney v. Chapman, 5 Pick. 124. Grunden v. Carter, 99 Mass. 15. Bigelow on Estoppel, 4 Ed., 459. Emmes v. Feeley, 132 Mass. 346.
Cleveland & Meals, for defendants in error, cited: 3 Parsons on Contracts, 36. Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, 62. Story's Equity, Sec. 1019.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer, brought by the defendants in error, before the county judge of Holt county, against plaintiff in error, to recover possession of certain lots situate in the village of O'Neill, which he alleges were wrongfully detained by plaintiff in error. Plaintiff in error, answering his complaint, First, denies each and every material allegation therein contained and not specially admitted. Second, he alleges that on or about May 1, 1885, he went into possession of a portion of lot 16 in block 17, in the village of O'Neill, the premises in controversy, to-wit, twenty feet off the west portion of said lot 16, under a verbal agreement with said plaintiffs, or with one of them, to-wit, Edwin Giddings, the terms of which agreement were as follows: Plaintiff in error was to erect upon said lot a bake oven and bakery building, and was to have the use of said lot free of rent, and in further consideration of the erection of said bake oven and bakery, defendants in error were to pay plaintiff in error the actual cost of said bake oven and building at any time thereafter at which plaintiff in error should desire to give up possession of the same. Plaintiff in error further alleges that, in accordance with said agreement, he built a bake oven and bakery upon said premises, at a cost of $ 500, and that, in accordance with the terms of said agreement, he has several times since offered to sell the same to defendants in error for $ 400, or at a loss of $ 100, and to leave said premises. Plaintiff in error further alleges that, he was at that time, and still is, ready and willing to carry out said agreement, and surrender the possession of said premises upon the payment to him of said sum of $ 400, but that defendants have entirely refused, and still refuse, to fulfill the said contract on their part.
As a second and further defense, defendant alleges that, on or about the 22d of May, 1885, the defendants in error, by good and sufficient warranty deed, conveyed said premises and all their right, title, and interest therein to one E. F Gallagher, and that on or about the 14th day of August, 1885, the said E. F. Gallagher, by a good and sufficient warranty deed, conveyed said premises to Hugh J. Gallagher, both of which deeds are of record in the office of the county clerk of Holt county, Nebraska. That on or about September 15th, the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial