Tootle v. Maben
| Decision Date | 09 June 1887 |
| Citation | 21 Neb. 617,33 N.W. 264 |
| Parties | TOOTLE AND OTHERS v. MABEN. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Where, in an action on a promissory note and account, the answer of the defendant was a plea of payment and overpayment, and there is a failure of proof to show payment of the account, a verdict for the defendant thereon cannot be sustained.
A cause should be submitted to the jury upon the issues made by the pleadings, and not upon incidental questions which may arise from the testimony.
Error from Holt county.H. M. Uttley and Groff & Montgomery, for plaintiffs.
M. P. Kinkaid, for defendant.
This action was commenced in the county court of Holt county, where a judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, less $36.04. The defendant appealed to the district court, and in May, 1885, the plaintiffs filed their petition in said court, stating their cause of action to be:
“That prior to August 14, 1884, the plaintiffs sold and delivered to Maben & McCormick goods, wares, and merchandise, for which said firm was indebted at that date to the plaintiffs in the sum of $636.41; that on or about said date the firm of Maben & McCormick was dissolved, and its indebtedness to the plaintiffs was assumed by the defendant, and he agreed with the plaintiffs to pay the same; that pursuant to said agreement, on or about August 25, 1884, defendant did pay on said account the sum of $130, and, in partial payment of the balance thereof, gave his promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
+-------------------------------------+
¦‘$300.¦DELOIT, NEB., August 25, 1884.¦
+-------------------------------------+
Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of Tootle, Maul & Co., at the Bank of Neligh, three hundred dollars, value received, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum.
L. B. MABEN.'
--And that he promised to pay the balance within a short time; that there was due from the defendant to the plaintiffs, upon said note and the balance of said account, a copy of which was attached to the petition, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part thereof, including interest, the sum of $515.71, for which, with interest and costs, the plaintiffs prayed judgment against the defendants.”
The following is a copy of the account, the principal of the note being added thereto:
Maben & McCormick,
In Account with Tootle, Maul & Co., S. W. Cor. Harney and Eleventh Sts.
+---------------------------------------------------------+
¦1884.¦Dr. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Cr. ¦ ¦
+-----+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦1 ¦18¦To Mdse¦60¦$ 27 07¦6 ¦3 ¦By cash ¦$ 75 00¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦90¦58 50 ¦8 ¦28¦ ¦130 00 ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦21¦ ¦60¦17 16 ¦ ¦ ¦Bills receivable¦300 00 ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦90¦31 77 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦2 ¦14¦ ¦60¦26 04 ¦ ¦ ¦Balance ¦206 41 ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦90¦10 00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦4 ¦9 ¦ ¦30¦4 75 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦60¦145 93 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦90¦157 00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦6 ¦3 ¦ ¦60¦140 48 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦90¦79 48 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦4 ¦ ¦90¦7 65 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦27¦ ¦90¦2 00 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦30¦ ¦90¦3 58 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦711 41 ¦
+--+--+-------+--+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦711 41 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+--+----------+-------+----+--+----------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦To Bal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Idaho Mercantile Company v. Kalanquin
... ... Lovelock v. Greeg, 14 Colo. 53, 23 P. 86; Lerche ... v. Brasher, 104 N.Y. 157, 10 N.E. 58; Clarke v ... Mullen, 16 Neb. 481, 20 N.W. 642; Tootle v ... Maben, 21 Neb. 617, 33 N.W. 264.) The plaintiff made out ... a prima facie case, and the motion for nonsuit should have ... been overruled ... ...
-
Tootle v. Maben
...33 N.W. 264 21 Neb. 617 MILTON TOOTLE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. LUTHER B. MABEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR Supreme Court of NebraskaJune 9, ERROR to the district court for Holt county. Tried below before POST, J., sitting for TIFFANY, J. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Groff, Montgomery & Jeffrey and......