Crump v. King

Nebraska Supreme Court

Crump v. King

61 N.W. 84, 43 Neb. 145, 1894 Neb. LEXIS 525

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1894

DocketNo. 5208

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.W. 84 (Crump v. King) 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

Crump v. King, 61 N.W. 84, 43 Neb. 145, 1894 Neb. LEXIS 525 (Neb. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Irvine, C.

The defendant in error sued the plaintiffs in error on a promissory note which the evidence showed was executed by Crump as principal, and McDowell as surety, for a portion of the purchase price of a stock of goods sold by King to Crump and one Nicholson. The defense was that King falsely represented to Crump, as an inducement to the sale, that the past sales of the store had amounted to $25,000 a year. A jury was waived and the case tried to the court, which found for the plaintiff.

The only assignment of error argued is that the finding was not sustained by the evidence. Upon the issue as to whether or not such’ representation as that pleaded was made, as well as upon every other issue in the case, the evidence was conflicting. It is not the province of this court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to weigh conflicting evidence. Following repeated rulings on similar questions the judgment of the district court must be

Affirmed.

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

Irvine, C.

The defendant in error sued the plaintiffs in error on a promissory note which the evidence showed was executed by Crump as principal, and McDowell as surety, for a portion of the purchase price of a stock of goods sold by King to Crump and one Nicholson. The defense was that King falsely represented to Crump, as an inducement to the sale, that the past sales of the store had amounted to $25,000 a year. A jury was waived and the case tried to the court, which found for the plaintiff.

The only assignment of error argued is that the finding was not sustained by the evidence. Upon the issue as to whether or not such’ representation as that pleaded was made, as well as upon every other issue in the case, the evidence was conflicting. It is not the province of this court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to weigh conflicting evidence. Following repeated rulings on similar questions the judgment of the district court must be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.W. 84, 43 Neb. 145, 1894 Neb. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crump-v-king-neb-1894.