Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 Neb. 600

Slade v. Swedeburg Elevator Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1894

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1894-03-06

Heard below before Bates, J. In cases of contract for the payment of a sum of money the payment of a less sum will not be a good satisfaction unless it was paid before due, or upon some other new and valid consideration.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1977

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

30189419001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ryan, C.

¶1This action was brought by the appellant in the district court of Sauuders county, Xebraska, to enforce a claim for a balance alleged to be due from appellee to appellant for constructing its elevator. The contract for the erection was oral, and, as would naturally be expected, there exists a’conflict of evidence as to its terms and conditions. The *601answer alleged that the elevator was very defectively constructed, and that it was not completed as agreed, and that, therefore, the elevator company refused to pay the amount to which appellant would have been entitled upon full compliance with the terms of the aforesaid contract; that to settle the differences it was agreed finally that appellant should be paid the sum of $350 in full of his claim against appellee, which proposition was assented to by appellant, whereupon that sum was paid by appellee to appellant, and that there was nothing due when this action was begun. This was denied by a reply duly filed.

¶2The evidence was not at all satisfactory as to anything connected with the building of the elevator, and as to the alleged final settlement it is but little better. There was, however, sufficient relevant evidence from which the court might conclude that there had been made a compromise of honest differences between these contracting parties, and that pursuant to the terms of such compromise all matters of difference had been fully settled. The judgment of the district court is therefore

¶3Affirmed.

/39/neb/600 · .json · Public domain