History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dingle v. Gilbert
117 Neb. 237
Neb.
1928
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission. The defenses tendered by the answer were, first, the statute of limitations; ■ second, that plaintiff did not procure a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy defendant’s land, and that no valid contract for the sale thereof was ever procured by defendant. At the conclusion of all the testimony, the trial court directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed, but in his brief he has totally ignored several provisions of rule 13 of this court. In his brief he fails to state the issues tried in the court below :and how they were decided, and there are no assignments of error in the brief.

Because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rule of the court respecting the preparation of briefs, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Dingle v. Gilbert
Court Name: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 22, 1928
Citation: 117 Neb. 237
Docket Number: No. 26017
Court Abbreviation: Neb.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.