Forsha v. Nebraska Moline Plow Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Forsha v. Nebraska Moline Plow Co.

134 N.W. 522, 90 Neb. 736, 1912 Neb. LEXIS 143

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Forsha v. Nebraska Moline Plow Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 89 Neb. 770 →

Nebraska Supreme Court·Decided February 10, 1912·No. No. 16,411·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of the motion for a rehearing, and in view of the rule announced in Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. McManigal, 73 Neb. 585, we are of opinion that no judgment should have been rendered on the verdict in this case.

It is therefore considered that the judgment against-the plaintiff and in favor of defendant Murdock & Son, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Nebraska Moline Plow Company, should be reversed and the cause remanded to the district court for a new trial, with leave to the plaintiff to proceed against both of the defendants.

The motion for a rehearing is

Overruled.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of the motion for a rehearing, and in view of the rule announced in Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. McManigal, 73 Neb. 585, we are of opinion that no judgment should have been rendered on the verdict in this case.

It is therefore considered that the judgment against-the plaintiff and in favor of defendant Murdock & Son, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Nebraska Moline Plow Company, should be reversed and the cause remanded to the district court for a new trial, with leave to the plaintiff to proceed against both of the defendants.

The motion for a rehearing is

Overruled.

Forsha v. Nebraska Moline Plow Co., 134 N.W. 522, 90 Neb. 736, 1912 Neb. LEXIS 143 (Neb. 1912).

Pincite

134 N.W. 522 (Forsha v. Nebraska Moline Plow Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.