Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1894. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Reed v. Davis Milling Co. rights in the premises, and in our view the proof is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover. Some objection is made to the form of the action, in -ffect that the action is brought in the name of the estate and not the administrator. It does appear that the action is brought by Boyd as administrator of the estate of Frankman, and that he is such administrator. There is no merit in the defense and the judgment is Affirmed. The other judges concur. Reed Bros. & Company V. R. T. Davis Milling Company. Filed June 30, 1893. No. 5031. Assumpsit: Evidence: Review. In an action on account for flour sold and delivered, a number of defenses were set up which the proof failed to sustain, and the jury having found for the plaintiff, held, that the judgment was right and no error in the record. Error from the district court of Cass county. Tried below before Chapman, J. H. D. Travis, for plaintiff in error. A. N. Sullivan and Gregory, Day & Day, contra. Maxwell, Ch. J. This is an action upon an account for flour sold and delivered to recover the sum of $261, with interest from September 1, 1890. Reed v. Davis Milling Co. To the petition the defendant below filed an answer as follows: "Comes now the defendant herein and for answer to plaintiff's petition admits that the plaintiff is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Missouri; admits that the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Nebraska and doing a general merchandise business at Weeping Water, Nebraska. "2. Defendant admits that on or about the 1st of September, 1890, the defendant purchased of and from the plaintiff a bill of goods, to-wit, flour; that the said flour was sold to defendant by plaintiff, the price of which was $633.20. ...