Nelson v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 13 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 17,663 |
| Citation | 145 N.W. 1004,95 Neb. 523 |
| Parties | CHARLES G. NELSON ET AL., APPELLEES, v. FRED NELSON, APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: WILLIAM A REDICK, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Brome & Brome, for appellant.
J. L Kaley, contra.
Charles G. Nelson and Charles W. Kaley recovered a judgment against the appellant in the district court for Douglas county for the sum of $ 478.40, and this appeal is prosecuted for the purpose of reversing that judgment.
The suit was commenced in the county court, and bye stipulation of the parties was tried in the district court on the pleadings filed in the county court, which are too long to be copied in the opinion. It is sufficient to say that defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiffs as follows:
It was alleged that according to the terms of the contract plaintiffs procured the exchange of property to be made, and caused the 1,160-acre farm in Miller county, Missouri, to be conveyed by good and sufficient deed to the defendant; that defendant had paid them $ 64.75 on the contract, and that there was a balance due from the defendant to plaintiffs amounting to $ 435.25 with interest, for which they prayed judgment.
The answer of the defendant was a general denial of the allegations of the petition not specifically admitted, and an allegation that plaintiffs ought not to recover against him, for that plaintiffs were the agents employed by one J. P. Falter to procure the exchange of the Miller county, Missouri, farm for the defendant's town property in the city of Omaha; that at the time he entered into the contract defendant was not aware of that fact; and that, by means of certain false representations made by plaintiffs, defendant was induced to exchange his Omaha property for said farm. There followed a description of the false representations alleged to have been made by plaintiffs, and a statement of certain rents collected and retained by the plaintiffs, amounting to $ 72, for which, with interest, the defendant prayed judgment against the plaintiffs. The reply put the allegations of defendant's answer in issue.
A trial was had to the court and a jury, and after the evidence was introduced the defendant requested the court to direct the jury to return a verdict in his favor. His request was denied, and the court on its own motion directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs for the sum of $ 478.40, as above stated. The verdict was returned, judgment was rendered thereon, and the defendant has appealed.
Counsel for defendant contends that the judgment of the district court should be reversed, because the contract does not contain a description of the property which he proposed to exchange for the Miller county farm. We think this contention is without merit, for, as we view the contract, it was an agreement on defendant's part to pay plaintiffs the sum of $ 500 to assist him in purchasing the farm in question, and the evidence found in the bill of exceptions fully confirms our view of the contract. In fact, the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant to purchase for him the Missouri farm by paying for it with such properties as he had, and it appears that they performed their part of the contract.
In Howell...
To continue reading
Request your trial