The Victor Sewing Machine Co. v. Day
Decision Date | 01 July 1882 |
Citation | 14 N.W. 169,13 Neb. 408 |
Parties | THE VICTOR SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. HENRY J. DAY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Fillmore county. Tried below before GASLIN, J.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Gaylord & Fifield, for plaintiff in error.
John P. Maule, for defendant in error.
This is an action upon a contract alleged to have been entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff to purchase from it three sewing machines for the sum of $ 57. The answer is a general denial. On the trial of the cause in the court below a verdict was rendered for the defendant, upon which judgment was rendered.
The questions presented to this court are:
First. Did the defendant sign the contract set out in the petition.
Second. Did the plaintiff perform the agreement on its part.
All the evidence tends to prove both of the propositions, and the verdict is against the clear weight of testimony.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romberg v. Hughes
...v. Burr, 6 Neb. 319;Fisk v. State, 9 Neb. 66; S. C. 2 N. W. Rep. 381;Smith v. Evans, 13 Neb. 316; S. C. 14 N. W. Rep. 406;Victor S. M. Co. v. Day, 13 Neb. 408;S. C. 14 N. W. Rep. 169;Gandy v. Pool, 14 Neb. 101;S. C. 15 N. W. Rep. 223;Staman v. State, 14 Neb. 68;S. C. 15 N. W. Rep. 227;Kuhns......
-
Romberg v. Hughes
...be set aside and a new trial granted. Matthewson v. Burr, 6 Neb. 312. Fisk v. State, 9 Neb. 62. Smith v. Evans, 13 Neb. 314. Victor S. M. Co. v. Day, 13 Neb. 408. Gandy Poole, 14 Neb. 98. Staman v. State, 14 Neb. 68. Kuhns v. Bankes, 15 Neb. 92. Shapleigh v. Dutcher, 15 Neb. 563. It is unne......
- Fitzgerald v. Andrews
-
Angle v. Bilby
... ... Victor Sewing ... Machine Co. v. Day, 13 Neb. 408. Kuhns v ... Bankes, 15 Neb. 92. Price v. McComas, 21 ... ...