Pritchett v. Collins

Nebraska Supreme Court

Pritchett v. Collins

132 N.W. 394, 89 Neb. 839, 1911 Neb. LEXIS 274

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 25, 1911

DocketNo. 16,801

StatusPublished

This text of 132 N.W. 394 (Pritchett v. Collins) 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

Pritchett v. Collins, 132 N.W. 394, 89 Neb. 839, 1911 Neb. LEXIS 274 (Neb. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Fawcett, J.

Action for rent of a.building. Counter-claim, for damages caused by a leaky roof. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The only error assigned and argued in plaintiff’s brief is the insufficiency of the evidence. Plaintiff concedes that there is a conflict in the oral testimony given by himself and the defendant Collins, but insists that his testimony is so strongly corroborated by undisputed facts that it should be believed as against “the story told by Collins.” This argument should have been, and doubtless was, addressed to the jury. While we might have arrived at a different cc/iclusion from that reached by the jury, had we been sitting as triers of fact, we cannot say that the verdict is manifestly wrong. In such case we should not interfere.

Affirmed.

Sedgwick, J., not sitting.

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

Fawcett, J.

Action for rent of a.building. Counter-claim, for damages caused by a leaky roof. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The only error assigned and argued in plaintiff’s brief is the insufficiency of the evidence. Plaintiff concedes that there is a conflict in the oral testimony given by himself and the defendant Collins, but insists that his testimony is so strongly corroborated by undisputed facts that it should be believed as against “the story told by Collins.” This argument should have been, and doubtless was, addressed to the jury. While we might have arrived at a different cc/iclusion from that reached by the jury, had we been sitting as triers of fact, we cannot say that the verdict is manifestly wrong. In such case we should not interfere.

Affirmed.

Sedgwick, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 N.W. 394, 89 Neb. 839, 1911 Neb. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritchett-v-collins-neb-1911.