Miller v. Antelope Cnty.
| Citation | 35 Neb. 237,52 N.W. 1116 |
| Parties | MILLER v. ANTELOPE COUNTY. |
| Decision Date | 21 September 1892 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
A motion for a new trial is necessary to obtain a review by petition in error of the rulings of the trial court on the admission or exclusion of testimony, or to secure a review of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether it is sufficient to sustain the finding and judgment.
Error to district court, Antelope county; NORRIS, Judge.
Action by J M. Miller against Antelope county for medical services rendered a pauper. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.B. B. Willey, for plaintiff in error.
J. F. Boyd, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error presented to the county board of Antelope county an account for $44.50 for medical services rendered by him to one Christian Mosher, a pauper, at the request of E. F. Skinner, a justice of the peace of said county, which claim was rejected by the board, and Miller appealed from the decision to the district court. Upon the trial there the court found the issues for the county, and rendered judgment dismissing the action. The petition in error contains two assignments: First. The court erred in admitting the evidence of the witness T. W. Dennis. Second. The findings are not sustained by sufficient evidence.
We are precluded from examining either of the errors assigned, for the reason no motion for a new trial was made in the court below. The filing of such a motion was indispensable, in order to review the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of testimony, or to secure a review of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether it sustains the finding and judgment. Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb. 108; Hosford v. Stone, 6 Neb. 380; Lichty v. Clark, 10 Neb. 472, 6 N. W. Rep. 760;Crutz v. Wray, 19 Neb. 581, 27 N. W. Rep. 634;Weitz v. Wolfe, 28 Neb. 500, 44 N. W. Rep. 485. As neither of the errors assigned can be considered by this court, for the reason stated, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...Contracts by Samuel Williston § 49:119 (4th ed. 2015).8 Star Union Lumber Co. v. Finney, 35 Neb. 214, 52 N.W. 1113 (1892).9 Id. at 223, 52 N.W. at 1116.10 OB–GYN v. Blue Cross, supra note 6.11 Id. at 205, 361 N.W.2d at 554.12 Id. at 205–06, 361 N.W.2d at 555.13 See, Obermeier v. Bennett, 23......
-
Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., S-15-912.
...by Samuel Williston § 49:119 (4th ed. 2015). 8. Star Union Lumber Co. v. Finney, 35 Neb. 214, 52 N.W. 1113 (1892). 9. Id. at 223, 52 N.W. at 1116. 10. OB-GYN v. Blue Cross, supra note 6. 11. Id. at 205, 361 N.W.2d at 554. 12. Id. at 205-06, 361 N.W.2d at 555. 13. See, Obermeier v. Bennett, ......
-
Scroggin v. National Lumber Company
...... 3 Neb. 108; Wells v. Preston, 3 Neb. 444;. Singleton v. Boyle, 4 Neb. 414; Hull v. Miller, 6 Neb. 128; Crutts v. Wray, 19 Neb. 581, 27 N.W. 634; Manning v. Cunningham, 21 Neb. 288, 31 . 933; Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Neb. 128,. 51 N.W. 469; Miller v. Antelope County, 35 Neb. 237,. 52 N.W. 1116.) This rule applies as well to equity cases. brought here on ......
-
Scroggin v. Nat'l Lumber Co.
......108; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Preston, Id. 444; Singleton v. Boyle, 4 Neb. 414; Hull v. Miller, 6 Neb. 128; Cruts v. Wray, 19 Neb. 581, 27 N. W. 634;Manning v. Cunningham, 21 Neb. 288, 31 N. W. 933;Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Neb. 128, 51 N. W. 469;Miller v. Antelope Co., 35 Neb. 237, 52 N. W. 1116. This rule applies as well to equity cases brought here on error as ......