Opinion ID: 1721959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Identity of Lessors

Text: In challenging the preliminary instructions, Sedlak first urges that although the district court initially advised the jury that Miller leased to Sedlak the land it used for its flight operations, following the close of the evidence the district court informed the jury that while Sedlak alleged Miller was a lessor, Miller denied such status. Although Sedlak sued Miller solely, it alleged that the defendants leased land to Sedlak, and Miller's various answers admitted that allegation. (Emphasis supplied.) However, during the course of trial, Miller, without objection, was permitted to amend his operative answer to conform to the proof by denying that he was a lessor. The lease was not offered in evidence, and Sedlak concedes in its brief that Miller was not a lessor. A litigant is entitled to have the jury instructed only upon those theories of the case which are presented by the pleadings and which are supported by competent evidence. Farmers & Merchants Bank, supra ; Burns v. Metz, 245 Neb. 428, 513 N.W.2d 505 (1994). Thus, the preliminary instruction in this regard was unquestionably wrong, for it proved not to be supported by the evidence. However, since Sedlak admits Miller was not a lessor, the district court's preliminary instruction in this regard worked to Miller's prejudice, not to Sedlak's.