Pearsall v. Columbus Creamery Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Pearsall v. Columbus Creamery Co.

62 N.W. 1093, 44 Neb. 833, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 98

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedApril 16, 1895

DocketNo. 5757

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.W. 1093 (Pearsall v. Columbus Creamery 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

Pearsall v. Columbus Creamery Co., 62 N.W. 1093, 44 Neb. 833, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 98 (Neb. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Ragan C.

James Pearsall brought this action in the district court ■of Platte county against the Columbus Creamery Company. The object of the action was to have established and foreclosed a lien for labor and materials which Pearsall alleged he had furnished the Creamery Company for the erection of an improvement on certain real estate belonging [834]*834to it. Pearsall had a decree and the Creamery Company has appealed. A large part of the claim of Pearsall was-for extras. The defenses of the Creamery Company were that Pearsall had not completed the building within the time agreed under his contract, by which the Creamery Company had been delayed in the manufacture of butter and thereby damaged; that the building was not constructed of proper material and in the proper manner; and that it was not liable to Pearsall for the extras claimed. The evidence on all the litigated issues was conflicting. The appeal presents no question of law. The evidence sustains the finding and decree of the district court, and it must, therefore, be and is accordingly

Affirmed.

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

Ragan C.

James Pearsall brought this action in the district court ■of Platte county against the Columbus Creamery Company. The object of the action was to have established and foreclosed a lien for labor and materials which Pearsall alleged he had furnished the Creamery Company for the erection of an improvement on certain real estate belonging [834]*834to it. Pearsall had a decree and the Creamery Company has appealed. A large part of the claim of Pearsall was-for extras. The defenses of the Creamery Company were that Pearsall had not completed the building within the time agreed under his contract, by which the Creamery Company had been delayed in the manufacture of butter and thereby damaged; that the building was not constructed of proper material and in the proper manner; and that it was not liable to Pearsall for the extras claimed. The evidence on all the litigated issues was conflicting. The appeal presents no question of law. The evidence sustains the finding and decree of the district court, and it must, therefore, be and is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.W. 1093, 44 Neb. 833, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearsall-v-columbus-creamery-co-neb-1895.