Union Pac. R. Co. v. Kinney
Decision Date | 04 March 1896 |
Citation | 66 N.W. 449,47 Neb. 393 |
Parties | UNION PAC. R. CO. v. KINNEY ET AL. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. If a bill of exceptions has not been authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the trial court, as required by law, matters contained therein will not be considered or examined by this court.
2. Errors must be affirmatively shown by the record; if not, it will be presumed that the proceedings of the trial court were correct.
Error to district court, Kimball county; Neville, Judge.
Action by J. J. Kinney and L. D. Sherer against the Union Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.J. M. Thurston, W. R. Kelly, and E. P. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
H. D. Rhea, for defendants in error.
In this action, in the district court of Kimball county, the plaintiffs (defendants in error) sought to recover of the Union Pacific Railway Company, as damages, the value of a gray stallion, alleged to have been struck and killed by a locomotive on a portion of the company's line of road in Kimball county, Neb., it being further alleged that the striking and killing of the horse were due to the negligent and careless manner in which an engine and train of cars were operated and handled by the employés of the company at the time of the occurrence. Issues were joined by the pleadings filed by the parties, and a trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the action. The company presents the case here for review by error proceedings. In view of the disposition which we have, after examination, determined must be made of the case, a further or more extended statement is deemed unnecessary. In the argument in the brief filed by counsel for the railway company, it is urged: (1) “The court should have granted defendant's request to direct a verdict for defendant, or its motion for new trial.” (2) (3) “The court erred in that by the third instruction it charged the jury that: ‘The building of a fence on one side of a railway company's right of way by the owner and occupier of the lands on that side, does not release the company from its duty to build a fence on the other side of said railway company's right of way.’ ” (4) “The uncontroverted evidence shows that the plaintiff Kinney, in permitting his stallion to run at large, was guilty of a breach of section 91 of the Consolidated Statutes (Cobbey's Ed.).” (5) “The court erred in overruling the objection of the defendant below to the several questions put by the plaintiff on rebuttal to L. C. Kinney, Charles E. Cronn, and J. J. Kinney, as follows. * * *.”
To properly determine the force of each of these questions raised by the assignments of error, a reference to and examination of the testimony introduced during the trial of the case, or portions of it, is made necessary. Attached to the transcript is what purports to be a bill of exceptions, and to contain the evidence; but it is not authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forbes v. Morearty
...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, 66 N. W. 449. The decree in this case was entered in the district court November 28, 1893, and a transcript thereof was not filed in this ......
-
Forbes v. Morearty
... ... Gooding, 47 Neb. 38, 66 N.W. 39; Romberg v ... Fokken, 47 Neb. 198, 66 N.W. 282; Union P. R. Co. v ... Kinney, 47 Neb. 393, 66 N.W. 449.) The decree in this ... case was entered in ... ...
-
Nash v. Costello
... ... 413, 16 N.W. 433; ... Smith v. Kaiser, 17 Neb. 184, 22 N.W. 368; Yates ... v. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648, 37 N.W. 590; Warren v ... Brown, 31 Neb. 8, 47 N.W. 633; Crane Bros. Mfg. Co ... purpose of ascertaining the proceedings had and taken in such ... court. (Union P. R. Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393, 66 ... N.W. 449, and cases there ... ...
-
Burr v. Henry
...a proper certificate, we have not acquired jurisdiction of the cause. McDonald v. Grabow, 46 Neb. 406, 64 N. W. 1093; Railroad Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393, 66 N. W. 449. The petition in error is therefore ...