Young v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 31 March 1885 |
| Citation | 22 N.W. 792,17 Neb. 426 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Nance county.
J. R. Webster and M. V. Mondy, for plaintiff.
J. J. Sullivan and M. Whitmoyer, for defendant.
Plaintiff, Nathaniel J. Young, commenced an action in replevin in the court below by which he sought to recover the possession of a stock of furniture levied upon by the defendant, who was the sheriff of Nance county. The petition alleged a special ownership in the property, and the right to the posession thereof; that the property belonged to the firm of G. S. Young and plaintiff, who were brothers. The answer in effect admitted the partnership, but denied that G. S. Young and plaintiff were equal partners; denied the wrongful detention of the property, and the plaintiff's right to its possession. From the transcript of the testimony it appears that on the twentieth day of November, 1882, the defendant levied upon the property in question as the property of G. S. Young, to satisfy an execution then in his hands, issued upon a judgment in the county court of Nance county against G. S. Young and Polly Young.
The contention on the trial, on the part of plaintiff, was that the property in dispute belonged to the firm of G. S. Young & Bro., and on the part of the defendant that it was the individual property of G. S. Young. The record also shows that what purported to be the articles of copartnership was introduced in evidence, and that it was dated the tenth of November, 1882. But it does not accompany the transcript, and we are wholly in the dark as to its provisions. Whether it supported the theory of plaintiff, that the partnership went into effect on that date, we do not know and cannot ascertain. The plaintiff and G. S. Young both testified that it did. The defendant sought to show that the partnership had no existence at the time of the levy, and for that purpose introduced the testimony of two witnesses (the county judge in whose court another cause had been tried, and a juror who had set in that cause) who testified substantially that on that trial plaintiff had sworn that he did not come to Genoa (the place where the store was located) until about the twentieth of November, the date of the levy, and that the partnership was not formed until about 20 days after his arrival. The cause was tried to a jury, who returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant. They also returned a special verdict, by which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial