Parker v. Kuhn
| Decision Date | 24 March 1886 |
| Citation | 27 N.W. 399,19 Neb. 394 |
| Parties | PARKER v. KUHN AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Motion to dismiss.
George W. Doane, for the motion.
H. D. Estabrook, contra.
A motion is made by the attorney for the plaintiff“to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the transcript of the proceedings in said case was not filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court, and the cause docketed therein, within six months after the rendition of the decree in said cause by the district court.”From the certificate of the judge, it appears that the cause was tried at the October, 1883, term of the Douglas countydistrict court, and was taken under advisement until the June term, 1884, of that court, at which time a decree was rendered; that said term closed on the fifteenth of September, 1884, an adjournment sine die being had at that time; that thereafter, and as no date is given, presumably within the time authorized by law, a bill of exceptions was presented, by the attorney for the defendants, to the judge for his signature, together with proposed amendments by the attorney for the plaintiff; that certain exhibits used on the trial were not attached to the bill, which the plaintiff's attorney insisted should be attached, but which the defendants' attorney proposed to supply by an admission.The attorneys seem to have disagreed as to the terms of the admission.Afterwards the bill was again presented to the judge, “with an admission as to the legal effect of the exhibits as testimony” made and signed by counsel for defendants; that the attorney still objected to the signing of the bill without the exhibits, but upon the “admission of counsel as to their effect, and counsel for defendants thereupon filed and attached another and broader admission, when, upon further consideration, I allowed and signed the bill; that these proceedings occupied the time from one term of court to another,” etc., the bill being signed March 8, 1886.The attorney for the defendants has filed an affidavit showing that the delay in signing the bill was not his fault; that both plaintiff and defendants derive title from the same source, and that the exhibits referred to were patents from the United States for “the land in controversy, and mesne conveyances from the patentees to Parker, as well as all the court proceedings in the numerous foreclosure proceedings, and the files therein.”
No objection is made by the plaintiff's attorney to the correctness of the bill as signed, nor is there any evidence tending to show that the delay was unnecessary, or was caused by the fault of the attorney for the defendants; nor is the objection, in the motion, to the bill, because signed after the authority of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Ruthman
...Denver v. Capelli, 3 Col. 236; Williams v. People, 25 Col. 251; Olds v. Railway Co., 165 Ill. 472; Ferris v. Bank, 158 Ill. 237; Parker v. Kuhn, 19 Neb. 394; McGee v. Beall, 63 Miss. Hake v. Strubel, 121 Ill. 321; Weber v. Ins. Co., 80 Ill.App. 390; Chaplin v. Railroad Co., 227 Ill. 166; Ma......
-
Duffy v. Edson
...claimant's right and title to an office to which he has been elected? We answer in the negative. Says Maxwell, C. J., in Parker v. Kuhn, 19 Neb. 394, 396, 27 N. W. 399: “It is a well-established rule that where an individual in the prosecution of a right does everything which the law requir......
-
Horbach v. City of Omaha
...thereafter, and then the judge may retain the bill for examination, and sign it still later. Leighton v. Stuart, 8 Neb. 96; Parker v. Kuhn, 19 Neb. 394, 27 N. W. 399. Therefore, the case did not properly present the question which the court undertook to pass upon. For the reasons stated we ......
-
Horbach v. City of Omaha
...thereafter, and then the judge may retain the bill for examination and sign it still later. (Leighton v. Stuart, 8 Neb. 96; Parker v. Kuhn, 19 Neb. 394, 27 N.W. 399.) Therefore, the case did not properly present the which the court undertook to pass upon. For the reasons stated we do not th......