Case Name: John B. Vest, appellant, v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company et al., appellees
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1922-04-19
Citations: 108 Neb. 414
Docket Number: No. 22066
Parties: John B. Vest, appellant, v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company et al., appellees.
Judges: Heard before Morrissey, C. J., Dean, Aldrich and Day, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 414–414

Head Matter:
John B. Vest, appellant, v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company et al., appellees.
Filed April 19, 1922.
No. 22066.
Case Followed. The determination of this ease is- controlled by the holding in Vest v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator Co., ante, p. 407.
Appeal from the district court for Buffalo county: Bruno O. Hostetler, Judge.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
W. D. Oldham, Fred A. Eye, and M. H. Worloch, for appellant.
John A. Miller, E. P. McDonald and J. M. Fitzgerald, contra.
Heard before Morrissey, C. J., Dean, Aldrich and Day, JJ.

Opinion:
Morrisseij, C. J.
In all essentials the issues presented in this case are the same as in (No. 22065) Vest v. Farmers Cooperative Elevator Co., ante, p. 407. On the trial in the court below, it was stipulated that the, cases should be tried'together and submitted to the court, "but, such evidence as is not competent in one case and is competent in the other shall not be considered by the court in the decision of the case in which such evidence is not entitled to be admitted."
The evidence relating to the rights of the parties differs on immaterial matters only and the court below entered a similar judgment in each case. In the disposition of the questions presented herein we adhere to the holdings announced in No. 22065. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed as to the defendants Bargman and Walter, but as to the defendant Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company the judgment of the district court is set aside and the cause remanded, with directions to the district court to enter a judgment in accordance with the opinion in No. 22065.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.