Gray v. Disbrow

• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Citation: 55 N.W. 255,36 Neb. 857
• Parties: GRAY v. DISBROW ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

36 Neb. 857

55 N.W. 255

GRAY

v.DISBROW ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 2, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

In order to review the proceedings in the trial of an equity case by a petition in error a motion for a new trial must be filed, as in an action at law. Carlow v. C. Aultman & Co., 44 N. W. Rep. 873, 28 Neb. 672.

Commissioners' decision. Error to district court, Douglas county; Wakeley, Judge.

Action by M. A. Disbrow & Co. against C. E. Gard & Bro. and Adolph H. Gladstone,--Fred W. Gray intervening. Decree for plaintiffs. The intervener, Gray, brings error. Affirmed.Wharton & Baird, for plaintiff in error.

Montgomery, Charlton & Hall, for defendants in error.

RAGAN, C.

The decree which is sought to be reviewed in this case was rendered in the court below on the 14th of January, 1891, and a transcript of the evidence and the proceedings of the court below was filed in this court August 21, 1891. More than six months having elapsed between the date of the rendition of said decree and the filing in this court of the transcript of the proceedings and evidence, this case cannot be tried here as an appeal. It appears, also, from looking into the record, that no motion for a new trial was filed in the court below. We are therefore precluded from examining the testimony to see if the decree is supported by the evidence. Carlow v. C. Aultman & Co., 28 Neb. 672, 44 N. W. Rep. 873. The judgment of the district court is therefore, in all things, affirmed.

The other commissioners concur.