Dale v. Hunneman
| Decision Date | 07 December 1881 |
| Citation | 12 Neb. 221,10 N.W. 711 |
| Parties | DALE v. HUNNEMAN. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error for Platte county.Bowman, Crites, Cornelius & Sullivan, for plaintiff.
Byron Millett, for defendant.
This is an action in ejectment, the defence being a general denial. Judgment in the court below was rendered in favor of Hunneman. The errors assigned will be considered in their order: First. Objection is made to the admission of the deposition of W. B. Doddridge, upon the ground that it was taken in violation of an agreement, etc. The agreement was denied, and it is very clear that no advantage was taken of the plaintiff in taking the deposition, and it is proper evidence. There was, therefore, no error in its admission. Second. It is urged that the court erred in excluding the testimony of the plaintiff as to the value of lasting and valuable improvements erected by him on the premises in controversy.
It appears from the testimony that the plaintiff took possession of the premises, in the spring of 1874, under a verbal lease from W. B. Doddridge; that he remained in possession as such tenant until March, 1877, at which time a proposition was made by Doddridge to Dale offering to sell him the premises for the sum of $1,000, payable in county warrants. This proposition seems to have been accepted; the warrants to be delivered on or before July 1, 1877. None of the warrants have ever been delivered, nor has the plaintiff paid any sum whatever for said premises; nor does he now offer to comply with said contract in any manner or form. This being the case, the mere fact that the plaintiff had made valuable improvements upon the premises constituted no defence to an action for the possession. If his case is within the provisions of the occupying claimant's act, he may still apply for relief as to the value of such improvements. Section 626 of the Code provides that “in an action for the recovery of real property it shall be sufficient if the plaintiff state in his petition that he has a legal estate therein, and is entitled to the possession thereof,” etc.
Section 627 provides that “it shall be sufficient in such action if the defendant in his answer deny generally the title alleged in the petition, or that he withholds the possession, as the case may be; but if he deny the title of the plaintiff, possession of the defendant will be admitted.” The action of ejectment was originally devised to enable a tenant for years to recover the possession of the demised premises during the term, real actions at that time being confined to freehold estates. Blackstone says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staley v. Housel
...to possession, to be available must be pleaded in the answer, which is contrary to the principle decided in Franklin v. Kelley, and Dale v. Hunneman. In so far there is an apparent or real conflict in the opinions referred to, the two reported in the second and twelfth volumes of our report......
-
Floyd v. Hornbeck
... ... cross-complaint, and sue for specific performance ... Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Walker, 77 Minn ... 438, 80 N.W. 618; Dale v. Hunneman, 12 Neb ... 221, 10 N.W. 711. And we see no reason why, under our very ... liberal statutes regarding pleadings, the same rule should ... ...
-
Uppfalt v. Woermann
... ... the statute the defendant under a general denial may prove an ... equity which negatives the plaintiff's right to the ... possession (Dale v. Hunneman, 12 Neb. 221, 10 N.W ... 711); but can obtain no affirmative relief (The Duchess ... of Kingston's Case, 20 Howell's State Trials, ... ...
-
Travelers' Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Walker
...upon which his right to retain possession of the premises depends, he must plead the facts entitling him to such relief. Dale v. Hunneman, 12 Neb. 221, 10 N. W. 711; Newell, Ej. p. 681, § 56; Bliss, Code Pl. § 349. The only question in this case is whether the defendants' offer brings the c......