Roberts v. Hopper

Nebraska Supreme Court

Roberts v. Hopper

70 N.W. 244, 50 Neb. 681, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 510

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 16, 1897

DocketNo. 7092

StatusPublished

This text of 70 N.W. 244 (Roberts v. Hopper) 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

Roberts v. Hopper, 70 N.W. 244, 50 Neb. 681, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 510 (Neb. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Ragan, C.

Jessie M. Hopper brought this suit in the district court of Burt county in behalf of herself and two minor children against Thomas M. Roberts, a licensed dealer in intoxicating liquors, to recover damages for loss of support to herself and children by reason of the drunkenness of her husband caused by intoxicating liquors sold to him by Roberts. She had a verdict and judgment and Roberts brings the case here for review.

The only argument made in the brief is that the damages awarded by the jury are excessive. The verdict was for a much smaller sum than that claimed by the plaintiff below in her petition and not in excess of the amount warranted by the evidence. Under an assignment that the damages awarded are excessive we cannot review the action of the district court in admitting in evidence certain items of damage. Our consideration of the case [682]*682must be confined solely to tbe assignment of error argued in the brief. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Ragan, C.

Jessie M. Hopper brought this suit in the district court of Burt county in behalf of herself and two minor children against Thomas M. Roberts, a licensed dealer in intoxicating liquors, to recover damages for loss of support to herself and children by reason of the drunkenness of her husband caused by intoxicating liquors sold to him by Roberts. She had a verdict and judgment and Roberts brings the case here for review.

The only argument made in the brief is that the damages awarded by the jury are excessive. The verdict was for a much smaller sum than that claimed by the plaintiff below in her petition and not in excess of the amount warranted by the evidence. Under an assignment that the damages awarded are excessive we cannot review the action of the district court in admitting in evidence certain items of damage. Our consideration of the case [682]*682must be confined solely to tbe assignment of error argued in the brief. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.W. 244, 50 Neb. 681, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-hopper-neb-1897.