Emerson v. Kilroy

Nebraska Supreme Court

Emerson v. Kilroy

70 N.W. 51, 50 Neb. 591, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 487

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1897

DocketNo. 7060

StatusPublished

This text of 70 N.W. 51 (Emerson v. Kilroy) 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

Emerson v. Kilroy, 70 N.W. 51, 50 Neb. 591, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 487 (Neb. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Irvine, C.

Kilroy brought this action against Emerson to recover rent for a farm and also to recover for a small quantity of rye sold and delivered. Emerson filed a counter-claim asking damages against Kilroy for failure to perform a covenant to furnish a well on the farm, and also for the breach of an alleged contract to sell and deliver to the defendant 120 acres of corn-stalks. On the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover on both counts of his petition. The jury allowed the defendant [592]*592damages on the counterclaim relating to the well, but evidently found against the defendant as to the cornstalks. The only question presented by the briefs is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict in this last particular. No question of law is involved, and it would be useless to set out the evidence. We think it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Affirmed.

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

Irvine, C.

Kilroy brought this action against Emerson to recover rent for a farm and also to recover for a small quantity of rye sold and delivered. Emerson filed a counter-claim asking damages against Kilroy for failure to perform a covenant to furnish a well on the farm, and also for the breach of an alleged contract to sell and deliver to the defendant 120 acres of corn-stalks. On the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to recover on both counts of his petition. The jury allowed the defendant [592]*592damages on the counterclaim relating to the well, but evidently found against the defendant as to the cornstalks. The only question presented by the briefs is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict in this last particular. No question of law is involved, and it would be useless to set out the evidence. We think it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.W. 51, 50 Neb. 591, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerson-v-kilroy-neb-1897.