Forbes v. Morearty

• Decision Date: 08 April 1898
• Citation: 54 Neb. 505,74 N.W. 822
• Parties: FORBES v. MOREARTY ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

54 Neb. 505

74 N.W. 822

FORBES

v.MOREARTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

April 8, 1898.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The filing of a transcript of a judgment in the supreme court later than one year after its rendition confers no jurisdiction to enter a judgment in said appellate court.

2. The supreme court has no jurisdiction to review an order not embodied in a transcript certified by the clerk of the district court.

Appeal from district court, Douglas county; Walton, Judge.

Action by Laura S. Forbes against Edward F. Morearty and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Dismissed.Albert Swartzlander and Edward F. Morearty, for appellants.

Wright & Thomas, for appellee.

RYAN, C.

In the record in this case we find the pleadings, a decree of foreclosure, and a supersedeas bond, but nothing else purporting to be a part of a transcript of the proceedings in the district court of Douglas county. There is likewise a bill of exceptions, in which there are embodied a motion for an order for a writ of assistance, an affidavit in support of said motion, and certain orders made with respect to said motion. There is no certificate of the clerk of the district court identifying such motion and orders as a part of the record of the proceedings of said court. In appellants' brief, complaint is made of the order granting a writ of assistance, and of no other order or judgment.

It is required, in effect, by the provisions of section 675, Code Civ. Proc., that, to perfect his appeal, a party appealing from a final order shall, inter alia, procure from the clerk of the district court, and file in the office of the clerk of the supreme court, a certified transcript of the proceedings had in the district court. In Moore v. Waterman, 40 Neb. 498, 58 N. W. 940, a compliance with the above requirement was held essential to confer jurisdiction upon this court. See, also, Hoagland v. Van Etten, 23 Neb. 462, 36 N. W. 755;Trust Co. v. Ayer, 38 Neb. 891, 57 N. W. 567;Record v. Butters, 42 Neb. 786, 60 N. W. 1019;School Dist. v. Cooper, 44 Neb. 714, 62 N. W. 1084;Martin v. Fillmore Co., 44 Neb. 719, 62 N. W. 863;McDonald v. Grabow, 46 Neb. 406, 64 N. W. 1093;Otis v. Butters, 46 Neb. 492, 64 N. W. 1093;Felber v. Gooding, 47 Neb. 38, 66 N. W. 39;Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198, 66 N. W. 282; Railroad Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393, 66 N. W. 449. The decree in this case was entered in the district court November 28, 1893, and a transcript thereof was not...