Harold v. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co.

63 N.W. 929, 45 Neb. 618, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 255
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJune 22, 1895
DocketNo. 6375
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 63 N.W. 929 (Harold v. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co.) 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
Harold v. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co., 63 N.W. 929, 45 Neb. 618, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 255 (Neb. 1895).

Opinion

Norval, C. J.

The Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Company brought two actions in justice’s court against James Harold and J. C. Christensen, each suit being upon a promissory note executed by the defendants. Judgments were rendered against them, and thereupon they prosecuted appeals to the district court, where the suits were consolidated by stipulation of the parties. There was a trial in the court below to a jury, with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $260.23, upon which judgment was rendered on [619]*619May 26, 1893. Afterwards, on the 5th day of July, 1893, judgment for said amount, on motion of the plaintiff, was likewise rendered by the court against Swan Peterson and Mada D. Peterson, sureties on the appeal undertakings. J. C. Christensen,,James Harold, and the Petersons prosecute error, they having filed in this court a joint petition in error. An examination of the several errors therein assigned discloses not one which affects all the plaintiffs in error jointly. The ease is. therefore controlled by Gordon v. Little, 41 Neb., 250, and Small v. Sandall, 45 Neb., 306, where it was held that a petition in error is indivisible, and when made jointly by several parties it will be overruled as to all if it cannot be sustained as to all.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Levy v. South Omaha Savings Bank
77 N.W. 769 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1899)
Wollam v. Brandt
76 N.W. 1081 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Miller v. Hogeboom
76 N.W. 888 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Shabata v. Johnston
73 N.W. 278 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Regier
70 N.W. 934 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 N.W. 929, 45 Neb. 618, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-v-moline-milburn-stoddard-co-neb-1895.