Krieger v. Von Busch

152 N.W. 544, 98 Neb. 318, 1915 Neb. LEXIS 202
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedMay 1, 1915
DocketNo. 18086
StatusPublished

This text of 152 N.W. 544 (Krieger v. Von Busch) 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
Krieger v. Von Busch, 152 N.W. 544, 98 Neb. 318, 1915 Neb. LEXIS 202 (Neb. 1915).

Opinions

Rose, J.

This is an action to recover $172.26 for services performed by plaintiff as a domestic servant for defendants from October 8, 1908, until June 10, 1909, at $3.50 a week, including $20 for traveling expenses between plaintiff’s home at Madison, South Dakota, and the home of defendants near Campbell, Nebraska. The answer contains a general denial and a plea of settlement and payment. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and a judgment for the full amount of her claim and interest. Defendants have appealed.

The principal controversy on appeal appears to involve the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It is established without controversy that plaintiff performed the services for which she claims compensation. There is evidence tending to- show that defendants agreed to pay her $3.50 a week and her traveling expenses. On behalf [319]*319of defendants there is proof that plaintiff offered to make them a visit and to assist them for her railroad fare, and that they settled and paid her claims. On these issues there is a substantial conflict in the testimony, with sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. The questions of fact were therefore settled by the jury.

One of the assignments relates to the exclusion of testimony in answer to questions propounded to a witness for defendants, but the record does not contain an offer of proof essential to an affirmative showing of error. It follows that the judgment cannot be reversed on this ground. Barr v. City of Omaha, 42 Neb. 341; Blondel v. Bolander, 80 Neb. 531.

Complaint is made of other rulings on evidence, but in these respects reversible error is not shown.

Affirmed.

Barnes, Fawcett and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.

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

Related

Mathews v. State
19 Neb. 330 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1886)
Masters v. Marsh
19 Neb. 458 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1886)
Lipscomb v. Lyon
19 Neb. 511 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1886)
Yates v. Kinney
25 Neb. 120 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
Sellars v. Foster
42 N.W. 907 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1889)
Mordhorst v. Nebraska Telephone Co.
44 N.W. 469 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1890)
Barr v. City of Omaha
60 N.W. 591 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Blondel v. Bolander
114 N.W. 574 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 N.W. 544, 98 Neb. 318, 1915 Neb. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krieger-v-von-busch-neb-1915.