Austin v. Diffendaffer

Nebraska Supreme Court

Austin v. Diffendaffer

148 N.W. 907, 96 Neb. 747, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 123

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1914

DocketNo. 17,801

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 N.W. 907 (Austin v. Diffendaffer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Diffendaffer, 148 N.W. 907, 96 Neb. 747, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 123 (Neb. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

This is a suit to recover on eight separate causes of action the sum of $1,066. A jury was waived and the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $270. Defendants appeal.

In their brief defendants express the conviction that the judgment was rendered on the eighth cause of action, which they describe in their abstract as follows: “In August and [748]*748September, 1910, at the special instance and request of appellant, appellee prepared 65 acres of ground and planted same in wheat, which services are worth $195, and he also furnished the seed for said ground or ihe value of $65, making a total of $260 in this cause of action.” The answer amounted to a general denial.

It is argued on appeal that the trial court erred in overruling a request for special findings. This request was made after the entry of the judgment. It is clear that in denying the request there was no error.

It is further insisted that the judgment is not supported by the evidence, and that it is contrary to law. The evidence on the issues involving the eighth cause of action is conflicting, but is ample to sustain the finding of the trial court. It does not affirmatively appear that the judgment is contrary to law. On the other hand, it is obviously just. The appeal is not meritorious.

Affirmed.

Letton, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rose, J.

This is a suit to recover on eight separate causes of action the sum of $1,066. A jury was waived and the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $270. Defendants appeal.

In their brief defendants express the conviction that the judgment was rendered on the eighth cause of action, which they describe in their abstract as follows: “In August and [748]*748September, 1910, at the special instance and request of appellant, appellee prepared 65 acres of ground and planted same in wheat, which services are worth $195, and he also furnished the seed for said ground or ihe value of $65, making a total of $260 in this cause of action.” The answer amounted to a general denial.

It is argued on appeal that the trial court erred in overruling a request for special findings. This request was made after the entry of the judgment. It is clear that in denying the request there was no error.

It is further insisted that the judgment is not supported by the evidence, and that it is contrary to law. The evidence on the issues involving the eighth cause of action is conflicting, but is ample to sustain the finding of the trial court. It does not affirmatively appear that the judgment is contrary to law. On the other hand, it is obviously just. The appeal is not meritorious.

Affirmed.

Letton, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.W. 907, 96 Neb. 747, 1914 Neb. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-diffendaffer-neb-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack