Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Ringo

Nebraska Supreme Court

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Ringo

71 N.W. 1016, 52 Neb. 163, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 49

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 16, 1897

DocketNo. 7344

StatusPublished

This text of 71 N.W. 1016 (Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Ringo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Ringo, 71 N.W. 1016, 52 Neb. 163, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 49 (Neb. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Post, C. J.

It is, by means of the petition in error in this case, sought to secure a reversal of the judgment below upon two grounds, viz.: (1.) The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (2.) The court erred in refusing to require the jury to find specially upon certain controverted questions. There is, accompanying the record hereof, a paper entitled “Special Questions of Fact,” also a document purporting to be.a bill of exceptions, neither of which is in any manner authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the district court. It follows, from the nature of the assignments relied upon, that there is presented no question to be determined in this proceeding, and that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. The rule which governs this case has been so often asserted that a reference to the decisions bearing upon the subject is deemed unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Post, C. J.

It is, by means of the petition in error in this case, sought to secure a reversal of the judgment below upon two grounds, viz.: (1.) The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (2.) The court erred in refusing to require the jury to find specially upon certain controverted questions. There is, accompanying the record hereof, a paper entitled “Special Questions of Fact,” also a document purporting to be.a bill of exceptions, neither of which is in any manner authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the district court. It follows, from the nature of the assignments relied upon, that there is presented no question to be determined in this proceeding, and that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. The rule which governs this case has been so often asserted that a reference to the decisions bearing upon the subject is deemed unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 N.W. 1016, 52 Neb. 163, 1897 Neb. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-rock-island-pacific-railway-co-v-ringo-neb-1897.