C. Aultman & Co. v. Patterson

14 Neb. 57
Nebraska Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1883·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

•This cause is submitted to the court on a motion to quash the bill of exceptions. First,' because it was not filed in the district court; and, second, because there is no certificate of the clerk attached to the same. The bill was signed by the judge and was ordered to be made a part of the record in the cause, and there is no evidence before the court that it was not properly filed. The first objection therefore is untenable. The second objection is more serious. The statute permits the original bill to be filed in this court, but requires the clerk to certify that it is the original bill. This requirement cannot be dispensed with, but the court on proper application will permit the bill to be withdrawn for the purpose of having the certificate attached if desired. The motion must be sustained.

Motion sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. Aultman & Co. v. Patterson, 14 Neb. 57 (Neb. 1883).

14 Neb. 57 (C. Aultman & Co. v. Patterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stanser v. Cather
117 N.W. 98 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)
Tecumseh National Bank v. Saunders
71 N.W. 779 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
Yankton, Norfolk & Southwestern Railroad v. State
68 N.W. 487 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Union Pacific Railroad v. Kinney
66 N.W. 449 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. Gerhold
66 N.W. 538 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Romberg v. Fokken
66 N.W. 282 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Wax v. State
61 N.W. 117 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co.
59 N.W. 838 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Hogan v. O'Niel
17 Neb. 641 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1885)