Rube v. Cedar Cnty.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1892 |
| Citation | 53 N.W. 1009,35 Neb. 896 |
| Parties | RUBE v. CEDAR COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Where a taxpayer in good faith attempts to appeal from the allowance of a claim against a county by the county board, and gives an appeal bond which is approved by the county clerk, his appeal will not be dismissed on account of informalities or omissions in the undertaking, but an opportunity will be given to file a new and sufficient undertaking in the district court.
Error to district court, Cedar county; NORRIS, Judge.
Ferdinand Rube, as a resident taxpayer, appealed from the action of the board of county commissioners in allowing a certain claim against the county of Cedar to the district court, and from an order dismissing the appeal he brings error. Reversed.B. B. Boyd and J. C. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.
A. M. Gooding and Leese & Stewart, for defendants in error
This is a petition in error from the district court of Cedar county, and the material facts, as they appear from the record, are as follows: The plaintiff in error recovered judgment in the district court of Cedar county for costs in an action of trespass against one William Sullivan. Subsequently the latter filed a claim against the county for the amount of the costs adjudged against him, $363.69, and for attorneys' fees paid in said action, $334. The county board allowed the sum of $588 on said bill, from which order the plaintiff in error, an alleged taxpayer of said county, appealed to the district court. In the district court a motion was made by Sullivan to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: First, because the appellant (plaintiff in error) was not a taxpayer of said county; and, second, because no sufficient undertaking had been given. The first ground assigned is not supported by any evidence whatever. The notice of appeal, which is in due form, describes the appellant as a resident elector and taxpayer of said county. This allegation is sufficient to give the district court jurisdiction. There is no provision of statute for the making up of issues in the district court in cases appealed from the county boards. It is customary to try them without pleadings, and an appeal should not be dismissed upon the bare assertion of the adverse party that the appellant is not a taxpayer. The undertaking is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballantyne Co. v. City of Omaha
...by the express wording, of the statute quoted.' See, also, State ex rel. Miller v. Cavett, 163 Neb. 584, 80 N.W.2d 692; Rube v. Cedar County, 35 Neb. 896, 53 N.W. 1009. The defendant's contention is without The plaintiff contends that the defendant's assignments of error are insufficient, a......
-
Gannon v. Phelan
... ... peremptorily dismissed the appeal. This was substantial ... error." Rube v. Cedar County, 35 Neb. 896, 53 ... N.W. 1009. In Jacobs v. Morrow, 21 Neb. 233, 31 N.W ... ...
-
Gannon v. Phelan (In re Gannon's Estate)
...no opportunity to the appellant to give a new bond, but peremptorily dismissed the appeal. This was substantial error.” Rube v. Cedar Co., 35 Neb. 896, 53 N. W. 1009. In Jacobs v. Morrow, 21 Neb. 233, 31 N. W. 739, it is said: “Where a bond has been duly approved by the officer whose duty i......
-
In re Estate of Kothe
...be filed, and will not dismiss an appeal where it is possible by an amendment to correct or replace an erroneous bond." Rube v. Cedar County, 35 Neb. 896, 53 N.W. 1009, an action in which a taxpayer appealed from the allowance of a claim by the county board, and the appeal bond did not comp......