Hough v. Stover

• Citation: 46 Neb. 588,65 N.W. 189
• Parties: HOUGH ET AL. v. STOVER ET AL.
• Decision Date: 07 December 1895
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

46 Neb. 588

65 N.W. 189

HOUGH ET AL.

v.STOVER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 7, 1895.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a collateral proceeding, a judgment irregularly rendered cannot be assailed on that ground, provided the court which rendered such judgment had proper jurisdiction.

2. Questions of fact determined upon conflicting evidence will not be reviewed in the supreme court.

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

Action by David M. Hough and others against James E. Stover and Frederick Bitterolf. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Lake, Hamilton & Maxwell and Andrew Bevins, for appellants.

Henry P. Stoddart and Wm. E. Healey, for appellees.

RYAN, C.

The appeal in this case is from a judgment subjecting certain real property in Douglas county to the payment of a judgment in favor of appellees against James E. Stover. This real property had been conveyed by James E. Stover and his wife to William H. Duffield, by whom it was conveyed to Fred Bitterolf, whose daughter was the wife of James E. Stover. The first question argued is that the judgment for which the real property was decreed liable was rendered against James E. Stover, alone, whereas the action was brought against James E. Stover and Annie Stover, copartners as James E. Stover & Co. It is insisted that the judgment should have been against the firm, for the reason that firm property should be applied to the payment of partnership indebtedness before the debt of an individual member of the firm should be paid therewith. This objection hardly comes with a good grace from the individual partner, whose debt has been paid, and at any rate the judgment was not void. Possibly the district court, if its attention had been properly called to this condition of affairs in the suit wherein judgment was rendered against James E. Stover, might have corrected such irregularity, if found to exist and require correction. It is clear, however, that the alleged irregularity can avail nothing in the case under consideration, for the court had jurisdiction of James E. Stover. Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30, 48 N. W. 964;Trumble v. Williams, 18 Neb. 144, 24 N. W. 716. It would subserve no useful purpose to detail at length, or even to epitomize the evidence upon consideration of which the district court found the conveyance of James E. Stover and his wife fraudulent as against creditors; for, as is quite common, it is found scattered through a...