Otis v. Butters
Decision Date | 20 November 1895 |
Parties | OTIS v. BUTTERS. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
A petition in error will be dismissed out of this court when founded upon a transcript not authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the trial court.
Error to district court, Dawes county; Kinkaid, Judge.
Action by Luke S. Otis against Zeri M. Butters. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.A. W. Crites and A. G. Fisher, for plaintiff in error.
C. H. Bane, for defendant in error.
Each assignment in the petition in error, as well as every proposition discussed in the brief, is predicated upon matters disclosed solely by the supplemental transcript filed by the plaintiff in error in this court on July 9, 1894, and which alone contains the purported judgment sought to be reviewed. This transcript cannot be recognized by us, inasmuch as it is not authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the court below, as by statute required. Following Moore v. Waterman, 40 Neb. 498, 58 N. W. 940, and McDonald v. Grabow, 46 Neb.406, 64 N. W. 1093, decided herewith, the petition in error is dismissed. Dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forbes v. Morearty
...Neb. 714, 62 N. W. 1084;Martin v. Fillmore Co., 44 Neb. 719, 62 N. W. 863;McDonald v. Grabow, 46 Neb. 406, 64 N. W. 1093;Otis v. Butters, 46 Neb. 492, 64 N. W. 1093;Felber v. Gooding, 47 Neb. 38, 66 N. W. 39;Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198, 66 N. W. 282; Railroad Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393, ......
-
Forbes v. Morearty
... ... Van ... Etten, 23 Neb. 462, 36 N.W. 755; Omaha Loan & Trust ... Co. v. Ayer, 38 Neb. 891, 57 N.W. 567; Record v ... Butters, 42 Neb. 786, 60 N.W. 1019; School District ... v. Cooper, 44 Neb. 714, 62 N.W. 1084; Martin v ... Fillmore County, 44 Neb. 719, 62 N.W. 863; nald ... v. Grabow, 46 Neb. 406, 64 N.W. 1093; Otis v ... Butters, 46 Neb. 492, 64 N.W. 1093; Felber v ... Gooding, 47 Neb. 38, 66 N.W. 39; Romberg v ... Fokken, 47 Neb. 198, 66 N.W. 282; Union ... ...
-
Romberg v. Fokken
...court, and we have no right to ignore or disregard its mandatory provisions. Moore v. Waterman, 40 Neb. 498, 58 N. W. 940;Otis v. Butters, 46 Neb. 492, 64 N. W. 1093;Martin v. Fillmore Co., 44 Neb. 719, 62 N. W. 863;Yenney v. Bank, 44 Neb. 402, 62 N. W. 872. There is another reason why this......
-
Romberg v. Fokken
... ... or disregard its mandatory provisions. (Moore v ... Waterman, 40 Neb. 498, 58 N.W. 940; Otis v ... Butters, 46 Neb. 492, 64 N.W. 1093; Martin v ... Fillmore County, 44 Neb. 719, 62 N.W. 863; Yenney v ... Central City Bank, 44 Neb. 402, ... ...