Dinges v. Riggs
Oliver P. Dinges v. Anna Riggs
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Ragan, C.
This is a proceeding in error from the district court of ^Lancaster county prosecuted by Oliver P. Dinges to reverse a judgment rendered against him in favor of Anna Riggs.
Dinges assigns here that the district court erred in overruling his motion to compel the plaintiff below to elect 'upon which one of the three causes of action stated in her petition she would rely. There was no error in this ruling of the court. The causes of action, and each of them, stated in the petition sounded in tort, and they all grew out of and were connected with the same transaction, and were therefore properly joined. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 87; Freeman v. Webb, 21 Neb., 160 .)
The second assignment of error is that the verdict of 4he jury is not supported by sufficient competent evidence. We think it is. The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.