56 N.W. 208 (Neb. 1893), 4423, Hanisky v. Kennedy

Docket Nº4423
Citation56 N.W. 208, 37 Neb. 618
Opinion JudgeRAGAN, C.
Party NameEMMA HANISKY v. M. A. KENNEDY
AttorneyJohn D. Carson and Hastings & McGintie, for plaintiff in error, cited: Richard Cunningham, contra, cited:
Case DateSeptember 20, 1893
CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska

Page 208

56 N.W. 208 (Neb. 1893)

37 Neb. 618

EMMA HANISKY

v.

M. A. KENNEDY

No. 4423

Supreme Court of Nebraska

September 20, 1893

ERROR from the district court of Fillmore county. Tried below before MORRIS, J.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

John

D. Carson and Hastings & McGintie, for plaintiff in error, cited: Cottrell v. State, 9 Neb. 127; Jones v. State, 14 Neb. 210; Hinton v. Dickinson, 19 Ohio St. 583; Meredith v. Wall, 14 Allen [Mass.] 155; Smith v. Lint, 37 Me. 546; Maxwell v. Campbell, 8 Ohio St. 265; Hauskins v. People, 82 Ill. 193; Evans v. State, 58 Ind. 587; Jardee v. State, 36 Wis. 170; State v. Zeitler, 35 Minn. 238; Scatterwhite v. State, 32 Ala. 578.

Richard Cunningham, contra, cited: State v. Beatty, 16 N.W. 149 [Iowa].

OPINION

[37 Neb. 619] RAGAN, C.

On the 15th day of May, 1889, Emma Hanisky filed a complaint before the county judge of Fillmore county, alleging she was a single woman and pregnant of a bastard child, and that M. C. Kennedy was the father of such child. Such proceedings were had that Kennedy was held to answer said complaint at the next term of the district court of said county. This court convened in November of that year, and it being made to appear to the court that the child was born on the 22d day of September and had died on the 26th day of October following, the district court, on motion of the defendant Kennedy, dismissed the action. The plaintiff took an exception to this, and brings the case here on error.

The sole question presented by this record is, whether or not the pending action abated by reason of the death of the child. The answer to this question must depend upon the construction of section 6, chapter 37, entitled "Illegitimate Children," Compiled Statutes, which provides: "That in case the jury find the defendant guilty, or such accused person, before the trial, shall confess in court that the accusation is true, he shall be judged the reputed father of said child, and shall stand charged with the maintenance thereof, in such a sum or sums as the court may order and [37 Neb. 620] direct, with payments of costs of prosecution, and the court shall require the reputed father to give security to perform the aforesaid order. * * *" It will be seen from this statute that the object of this proceeding is that the complainant may have the verdict of a jury and a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • 512 N.W.2d 419 (Neb.App. 1994), A-92-115, State on Behalf of Dunn v. Wiegand
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals of Nebraska
    • February 22, 1994
    ...always recover them, even when the child was adopted or died. Bolich v. Robinson, 106 Neb. 449, 184 N.W. 218 (1921); Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208 (1893). By statute, "all expenses associated with the birth of a child," are now included within the term "medical......
  • 184 N.W. 218 (Neb. 1921), 21700, Bolich v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • July 7, 1921
    ...was not abated. This court has held that the death of the child, also the mother, will not abate the proceedings. Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208; Dodge County v. Kemnitz, 28 Neb. 224, 44 N.W. 184. In the Hanisky case, the child died during the pendency of the action, relieving......
  • 71 N.W. 980 (Neb. 1897), 8474, Harshman v. Ingwerson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • June 15, 1897
    ...the court was invested with jurisdiction to charge Harshman with the maintenance of this illegitimate child. In Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208, the word "maintenance" in this statute was construed, and it was there held to include the reasonable costs of supporting t......
  • 153 N.W. 4 (Mich. 1915), 273, People v. Grunland
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 14, 1915
    ...of the child. Hauskins v. People, 83 Ill. 193; Smith v. Lint, 37 Me. 546; Meredith v. Wall, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 155; Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208. The reasons for this holding are well expressed in Smith v. Lint, supra, where it is said: 'The expenses for the maintenance of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • 512 N.W.2d 419 (Neb.App. 1994), A-92-115, State on Behalf of Dunn v. Wiegand
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals of Nebraska
    • February 22, 1994
    ...always recover them, even when the child was adopted or died. Bolich v. Robinson, 106 Neb. 449, 184 N.W. 218 (1921); Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208 (1893). By statute, "all expenses associated with the birth of a child," are now included within the term "medical......
  • 184 N.W. 218 (Neb. 1921), 21700, Bolich v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • July 7, 1921
    ...was not abated. This court has held that the death of the child, also the mother, will not abate the proceedings. Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208; Dodge County v. Kemnitz, 28 Neb. 224, 44 N.W. 184. In the Hanisky case, the child died during the pendency of the action, relieving......
  • 71 N.W. 980 (Neb. 1897), 8474, Harshman v. Ingwerson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • June 15, 1897
    ...the court was invested with jurisdiction to charge Harshman with the maintenance of this illegitimate child. In Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208, the word "maintenance" in this statute was construed, and it was there held to include the reasonable costs of supporting t......
  • 153 N.W. 4 (Mich. 1915), 273, People v. Grunland
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 14, 1915
    ...of the child. Hauskins v. People, 83 Ill. 193; Smith v. Lint, 37 Me. 546; Meredith v. Wall, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 155; Hanisky v. Kennedy, 37 Neb. 618, 56 N.W. 208. The reasons for this holding are well expressed in Smith v. Lint, supra, where it is said: 'The expenses for the maintenance of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results