Rosenfield v. Chada

• Decision Date: 02 September 1880
• Citation: 6 N.W. 630,10 Neb. 421
• Parties: JOSEPH ROSENFIELD AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. MATHIAS CHADA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

6 N.W. 630

10 Neb. 421

JOSEPH ROSENFIELD AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. MATHIAS CHADA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Supreme Court of Nebraska

September 2, 1880

ERROR to the district court for Saline county.

AFFIRMED.

M. B C. True, for plaintiff in error.

W. H Morris, for defendant in error.

OPINION

MAXWELL CH. J.

In February, 1878, an action was commenced in the district court of Saline county by the plaintiffs against the defendant, and lot 11, in block 143, in the city of Crete, was attached as his property. In April of that year judgment was rendered against him for the sum of $ 224.05, and an order made for the sale of the attached property. In January, 1879, an order of sale was issued on said judgment and delivered to the sheriff of said county, who thereupon caused the following appraisement to be made:

"The State of Nebraska, Saline county.

"We, Jacob Bigler, sheriff of Saline county, and H. C. Rider and J. C. McDonald, two disinterested freeholders, residents of said county, the said H. C. Rider and J. C. McDonald, having been first sworn by said sheriff, do, upon actual view thereof, appraise the property hereinafter described at its real money value, as the property of Mathias Chada, taken by virtue of an order of sale issued out of the district court of the first judicial district of Nebraska, in and for the county of Saline, wherein Joseph Rosenfield and Mayer Rosenfield are plaintiffs and the said Mathias Chada is defendant, to-wit: lot No. 11, in block 143, in the city of Crete, Saline county, Nebraska. The interest of Mathias Chada valued at the sum of $ 200.

"Given under our hands this twenty-third day of January, 1879.

"JACOB BIGLER, Sheriff.

"H. C. RIDER.

"J. C. MCDONALD."

The lot in question was sold to the plaintiffs for the sum of $ 134. The defendant filed a motion to set the sale aside, which was sustained. The plaintiffs bring the cause into this court by petition in error. The several errors assigned are substantially the same, viz.: that the court erred in sustaining objections to the sale, and that said objections should have been overruled. In the case of Sessions v Irwin, 8 Neb. 5, the interest of the defendant in certain real estate was valued at $ 10. It was held that the appraisers must specifically enumerate the liens and incumbrances which they find subsisting. This can only be done by ascertaining the gross value of the real estate, and...