Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Grimes

9 Neb. 123
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 Neb. 123 (Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Grimes) 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
Cleveland Co-operative Stove Co. v. Grimes, 9 Neb. 123 (Neb. 1879).

Opinion

Lake, J.

By the judgment here complained of, a judgment of the county court, in an action wherein the present plaintiff in error was plaintiff and the defendant in error was defendant, was reversed, and the original case retained for trial in the district court. It appears that, as the,statute requires, there was indorsed on the back of the summons an amount for which judgment would be taken “ if the defendant failed to appear,” [124]*124The amount thus stated was $94.37. The defendant made no appearance, and judgment was thereupon rendered against him for $194.37, or one hundred dollars more than the indorsement.

In all civil actions for the recovery of money only, whether commenced in the district, county, or justice courts, it is required that there be indorsed on the summons the amount for which judgment will be taken if the defendant fail to appear. And it is expressly provided that “ if the defendant fail to appear judgment shall not be rendered for a larger amount and costs.” Code of civil procedure, secs. 64, 910. Gen. Stat., 533, 666.

The provision here quoted is mandatory, and in case of the non-appearance of a defendant thus summoned, no judgment in excess of the amount indorsed on the writ can be lawfully rendered against him. A defendant has the right to rely upon this indorsement as fixing a limit beyond which the court cannot go in rendering judgment, in case he chooses to make no appearance in the action; and it is error to exceed it. Watson v. McCartney, 1 Neb., 131. Crowell v. Galloway, 3 Neb., 215. The judgment of reversal by the district court was clearly right, and must be affirmed.

Judgment aeeirmed.

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

Related

Elmen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
105 N.W. 987 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1905)
Adams v. Nebraska Savings & Exchange Bank
76 N.W. 421 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Baldwin v. Burt
74 N.W. 594 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Forbes v. Bringe
49 N.W. 720 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Neb. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-co-operative-stove-co-v-grimes-neb-1879.