Gregory v. Langdon
| Decision Date | 14 January 1881 |
| Citation | 7 N.W. 871,11 Neb. 166 |
| Parties | E. MARY GREGORY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ANDREW C. LANGDON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ACTION quia timet brought by defendant in error in the district court of Seward county. Trial there before POST, J., resulted in favor of plaintiff, and defendant Gregory brought cause here on a petition in error.
AFFIRMED.
John S Gregory, for plaintiff in error.
Norval Brothers, L. C. Burr, and J. R. Webster, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error makes four points in her petition in error, as follows:
1. The judgment is contrary to law.
2. The court found for plaintiff when it ought to have found for the defendant Gregory, according to the law and the facts in the case.
3. The court erred in admitting the evidence objected to in said trial by the said defendant.
4. The finding of the court is contrary to equity and the weight of evidence in the case.
I will consider the third point first, as the other three may be considered together.
The plaintiff, in his petition, first sets up ownership of the lands in question by virtue of a deed of conveyance from Milton Langdon and wife to himself, and tracing back the title by virtue of several deeds of conveyance through George B. Hardenbergh, the Nebraska Salt Company, H. Willett Linderman, and Henry Tinnell to the United States. He then also sets up title to the said lands by virtue of ten years adverse possession.
Upon the trial the plaintiff offered the record of a deed from the Nebraska Salt Co. to George B. Hardenbergh, to the introduction of which the defendant, plaintiff in error objected, as immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, which objection was overruled and the record admitted.
The deed was not immaterial or irrelevant, as the evidence of such conveyance was absolutely necessary to complete the chain of title set up by the plaintiff in his petition, and a deed of conveyance from the Nebraska Salt Company certainly was competent so far as it went to establish the said chain of title. But it appears now from the brief of the plaintiff in error, her objection to said deed was to its form, the manner of its execution and acknowledgment, etc. The objection made at the trial as shown by the bill of exceptions was too general. The attention of the trial court should have been specifically directed to these points, otherwise this court would not be warranted in reversing a judgment on their account, however much we might be inclined to agree with the plaintiff in error in her views upon these defects in the deed, now that they are pointed out to us.
But were we at liberty to consider the defects in...
To continue reading
Request your trial