Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Winnett
Decision Date | 01 July 1902 |
Citation | 91 N.W. 514,3 Neb. [Unof.] 293 |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Parties | WHEELER & WILSON MFG. CO. v. WINNETT. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 2. Error to district court, Lancaster county; Frost, Judge.
“Not to be officially reported.”
Action by Hudson J. Winnett against the Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.A. W. Lane, for plaintiff in error.
Stewart & Munger, for defendant in error.
This action was commenced in the district court of Lancaster county by the defendant in error to recover of the plaintiff the sum of $188.29, and interest thereon from the 20th day of June, 1899. The action was based upon the following facts, and a certain contract hereinafter set forth: It appears that prior to October 23, 1895, one A. F. Leiss, who was engaged in the business of selling sewing machines and musical instruments in Lincoln, Neb., was indebted to both parties to this suit. It also appears that Leiss had theretofore given a bond to the plaintiff in error on which the defendant was surety, with a contingent liability thereon in favor of the plaintiff; that Leiss had given both parties a chattel mortgage on his stock, and had turned over to the defendant, Winnett, certain notes and contracts as collateral security for his contingent liability above mentioned; that the face value of the notes and contracts so held by Winnett as collateral was about $2,500. On October 23, 1895, the parties came together, and, in settlement of their several claims against Leiss and each other, entered into the following agreement, to wit:
It further appears that said collateral notes and contracts were placed in the hands of Abbott, Selleck & Lane, as provided by the terms of said contract, who thereafter collected a portion of the same, and turned over to the Chicago Cottage Organ Company the $200 mentioned in the agreement in full, according to its terms; that the whole amount collected by the attorneys was $996.51; that the sum of $188.29 was retained by them for fees and expenses incurred in collecting the several claims which went to make up that amount; that the $996.51, less the $200 paid to the organ company and the fees and expenses thus retained, was turned over to Winnett. It incidentally appears that nothing more can be collected on the collateral notes and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Betts v. Comm'rs of the Land Office
...Writ denied in part and granted in part. Dale, Bierer & Hegler, for plaintiff.--Citing: In re Dickson, 166 Pa. 134; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Winette (Neb.) 91 N.W. 514; In re Curtis Will, 16 N. Y. Supp. 180; Williamson v. U. S., 207 U.S. 425; Campbell v. Comm'rs (Ind.) 18 N.E. 33; Shatt......
-
Furst & Thomas v. Elliott
... ... Whetten, 8 Wend. 160; Haven v. Gray, 12 ... Mass. 71, at 76; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v ... Winnett, 3 Neb. Unoff. 293, 91 N.W. 514, at ... ...
-
Bourne v. Cole
... ... In re Dixon, 30 A. 1032. That rule applies ... generally. Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Winnet, ... (Nebr.) 91 N.W. 514; in Re Curtis' Will, ... ...
-
United States v. Swope
...leasing of the same. See, also, In re Dickson et al., 166 Pa. 134, 30 A. 1032; Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Winnett, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 293, 91 N. W. 514; In re Curtis' Will, 61 Hun, 372, 16 N. Y. S. The argument is presented in this appeal that Congress must have intended that none of the land......