Jones v. Hayes
| Citation | 36 Neb. 526,54 N.W. 858 |
| Parties | JONES v. HAYES. |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1893 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
This court will not review the proceeding of the district court by petition in error unless a motion for a new trial was made in the trial court, and a ruling obtained thereon.
Error to district court, Adams county; Gaslin, Judge.
Action by A. S. Hayes against A. W. Jones on a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Petition in error dismissed.M. A. Hartigan, for plaintiff in error.
John M. Ragan, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought by A. S. Hayes upon a promissory note executed by A. W. Jones. Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the court below for the sum of $546.34, and the defendant prosecutes error to this court, alleging that the judgment is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to law. We cannot review the proceedings, for the reason the record fails to disclose that a motion for a new trial was presented to the trial court, and its ruling obtained thereon. While the transcript contains a copy of a motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the attention of the court below was ever called thereto. It has been frequently decided by this court that, in order to review the proceedings of a district court by petition in error, a motion for a new trial must be made in that court, and a ruling obtained on the motion. Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb. 108; Gibson v. Arnold, 5 Neb. 186; Lichty v. Clark, 10 Neb. 472, 6 N. W. Rep. 760;Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Neb. 128, 51 N. W. Rep. 469. The petition in error is dismissed. Judgment accordingly.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Little
...court of the proceedings of the district court by petition in error. Carlow v. C. Aultman & Co., 28 Neb. 672, 44 N. W. 873;Jones v. Hayes, 36 Neb. 526, 54 N. W. 858;Withnell v. City of Omaha, 37 Neb. 621, 56 N. W. 381, and cases there cited. An examination of the record before us fails to d......
-
Gordon v. Little
...in this court of the proceedings of the district court by petition in error. (Carlow v. Aultman, 28 Neb. 672, 44 N.W. 873; Jones v. Hayes, 36 Neb. 526, 54 N.W. 858; Withnell v. City of Omaha, 37 Neb. 621, 56 N.W. and cases there cited.) An examination of the record before us fails to disclo......
-
Brown v. Ritner
...judicial utterances of this court. Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb. 108; Carlow v. C. Aultman & Co., 28 Neb. 672, 44 N. W. 873;Jones v. Hayes, 36 Neb. 526, 54 N. W. 858;Withnell v. City of Omaha (Neb.) 56 N. W. 381. It is due the trial court, as well as to litigants, that every opportunity sho......
-
Brown v. Ritner
... ... by repeated judicial utterances of this court. (Cropsey ... v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb. 108; Carlow v. Aultman, ... 28 Neb. 672, 44 N.W. 873; Jones v. Hayes, 36 Neb ... 526, 54 N.W. 858; Withnell v. City of Omaha, 37 Neb ... 621, 56 N.W. 381.) It is due the trial court, as well as to ... ...