Wrich v. Union Pacific Railroad

Nebraska Supreme Court

Wrich v. Union Pacific Railroad

108 N.W. 178, 77 Neb. 48, 1906 Neb. LEXIS 39

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 20, 1906

DocketNo. 14,233

StatusPublished

This text of 108 N.W. 178 (Wrich v. Union Pacific Railroad) 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

Wrich v. Union Pacific Railroad, 108 N.W. 178, 77 Neb. 48, 1906 Neb. LEXIS 39 (Neb. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Oldham, C.

This is a companion case to Wiese v. Union P. R. Co., ante, p. 40,, and the two cases were presented together in the oral argument. The two cases were tried together in the district court, and a judgment quieting the title in the plaintiff was rendered in each of them. The facts, so far as they affect the conclusion to be reached, are practically the same. In this case the plaintiff, Carsten Wrich, purchased the land by contract from the Union Pacific Rail[49]*49road Company in 1881, and received bis deed in Í890.- He took possession immediately after Ms purchase and has claimed the land as his own ever since. In September, 1893, plaintiff Wrich undertook to make a cash entry of the land in the same manner as his neighbor Wiese did, so that every question involved in the controversy is fully covered in the opinion in Wiese v. Union P. R. Co., supra.

For the reasons given in that opinion, we recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Ames and Epperson, CC., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Oldham, C.

This is a companion case to Wiese v. Union P. R. Co., ante, p. 40,, and the two cases were presented together in the oral argument. The two cases were tried together in the district court, and a judgment quieting the title in the plaintiff was rendered in each of them. The facts, so far as they affect the conclusion to be reached, are practically the same. In this case the plaintiff, Carsten Wrich, purchased the land by contract from the Union Pacific Rail[49]*49road Company in 1881, and received bis deed in Í890.- He took possession immediately after Ms purchase and has claimed the land as his own ever since. In September, 1893, plaintiff Wrich undertook to make a cash entry of the land in the same manner as his neighbor Wiese did, so that every question involved in the controversy is fully covered in the opinion in Wiese v. Union P. R. Co., supra.

For the reasons given in that opinion, we recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Ames and Epperson, CC., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.W. 178, 77 Neb. 48, 1906 Neb. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrich-v-union-pacific-railroad-neb-1906.