Gandy v. Cummins
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 64 Neb. 312,89 N.W. 777 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1902 |
| Parties | GANDY v. CUMMINS. |
64 Neb. 312
89 N.W. 777
GANDY
v.
CUMMINS.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
March 19, 1902.
1. Petition examined, and held to state a cause of action.
2. A judgment will not be reversed for errors required to be assigned in a motion for a new trial, unless it is alleged in the petition in error, and shown by the record, that the court erred in overruling such motion. James v. Higginbotham, 82 N. W. 625, 60 Neb. 203, followed.
Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Error to district court, Pawnee county; Letton, Judge.
Action by Addison L. Cummins against James L. Gandy. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
[89 N.W. 777]
S. P. Davidson, for plaintiff in error.
Story & Story, for defendant in error.
ALBERT, C.
This is an action at law, brought by Addison L. Cummins against James L. Gandy to recover for money obtained of the plaintiff by the defendant by means of false and fraudulent representations. A trial to a jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and from a judgment rendered thereon the defendant prosecutes error to this court.
The first question relied on for a reversal is that the amended petition on which the case was tried does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegations of the petition are as follows: “That heretofore, to wit, during the latter part of the year 1890, Ann Fries and John Fries, her husband, being the owners of the property known as the ‘Fries Mill Property,’ consisting of something less than a quarter section of land, together with the mill and other improvements, situated in township one north, of range twelve east, in said county of Pawnee, and state of Nebraska, did enter into a contract to sell said property for the sum of $6,500 to the plaintiff, in and about which said transaction the said defendant, James L. Gandy, represented to this plaintiff that he was the agent of the said Ann Fries, and did then and there and in that behalf represent and declare to this plaintiff that he had full and entire authority from the said Ann Fries to negotiate and enter into contracts for the sale of her interest in said real estate, and to receive the purchase money for her in that behalf; and this plaintiff, believing said statements of the said James L. Gandy, and relying upon said declarations, did negotiate with the said James L. Gandy, as agent of the said Ann Fries, for the purchase of the said real estate, and, relying upon and believing his said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maher v. State, No. 31647.
...alleged in the petition in error, and shown by the record, that the court erred in overruling such motion.” See, also, Gandy v. Cummins, 64 Neb. 312, 89 N.W. 777;James v. Higginbotham, 60 Neb. 203, 82 N.W. 625. In Waxham v. Fink, 86 Neb. 180, 125 N.W. 145, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 367, 21 Ann.Cas. 3......
-
German Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Palmer
...and, unless the action of that court upon the motion is assigned as error, we are not called upon to review them. Gandy v. Cummins (Neb.) 89 N. W. 777;Achenbach v. Pollock (Neb.) 90 N. W. 304. It may be said, however, that plaintiff in error relies chiefly upon Insurance Co. v. Heiduk, 30 N......
-
Moores v. Jones
...in overruling the motion for a new trial, so that the first point would not be before us if it had any merit. Gandy v. Cummins (Neb.) 89 N. W. 777;Achenbach v. Pollock (Neb.) 90 N. W. 304. But it has none. Plaintiff sues on a note given to her husband in her lifetime, which she received as ......
-
Webster v. Bates Machine Company, 11,318
...is recommended that the judgment of [89 N.W. 792] the district court be reversed and a new trial granted. DUFFIE and ALBERT, CC. concur. [64 Neb. 312] By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be reversed and a new t......
-
Maher v. State, No. 31647.
...alleged in the petition in error, and shown by the record, that the court erred in overruling such motion.” See, also, Gandy v. Cummins, 64 Neb. 312, 89 N.W. 777;James v. Higginbotham, 60 Neb. 203, 82 N.W. 625. In Waxham v. Fink, 86 Neb. 180, 125 N.W. 145, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 367, 21 Ann.Cas. 3......
-
German Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Palmer
...and, unless the action of that court upon the motion is assigned as error, we are not called upon to review them. Gandy v. Cummins (Neb.) 89 N. W. 777;Achenbach v. Pollock (Neb.) 90 N. W. 304. It may be said, however, that plaintiff in error relies chiefly upon Insurance Co. v. Heiduk, 30 N......
-
Moores v. Jones
...in overruling the motion for a new trial, so that the first point would not be before us if it had any merit. Gandy v. Cummins (Neb.) 89 N. W. 777;Achenbach v. Pollock (Neb.) 90 N. W. 304. But it has none. Plaintiff sues on a note given to her husband in her lifetime, which she received as ......
-
Webster v. Bates Machine Company, 11,318
...is recommended that the judgment of [89 N.W. 792] the district court be reversed and a new trial granted. DUFFIE and ALBERT, CC. concur. [64 Neb. 312] By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be reversed and a new t......