Crawford v. Smith

Nebraska Supreme Court

Crawford v. Smith

77 N.W. 1078, 57 Neb. 503, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 32

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 1899

DocketNo. 8626

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 N.W. 1078 (Crawford v. Smith) 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

Crawford v. Smith, 77 N.W. 1078, 57 Neb. 503, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 32 (Neb. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Ragan, C.

J. C. Crawford sued Walter L. Smith in the district court of Cuming county. In his petition Crawford alleged that Smith was indebted to him in the sum of $120 for rent for certain buildings. Smith’s answer was a general denial. The case ivas tried to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of Smith, upon which a judgment dismissing Crawford’s action ivas entered, and he has filed a petition in error here to review that judgment.

The pleadings support the judgment. The correctness of the court’s instructions depends upon the evidence adduced on the trial. We cannot review the evidence, because the bill of exceptions found in the record is not ratified by the clerk of the trial court as being the original or á true copy of the bill of exceptions allowed in the case. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 587b; Groneweg v. Mathewson, 52 Neb. 591.) It follows that the judgment of the district court must be, and is,

.Affirmed,

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

Ragan, C.

J. C. Crawford sued Walter L. Smith in the district court of Cuming county. In his petition Crawford alleged that Smith was indebted to him in the sum of $120 for rent for certain buildings. Smith’s answer was a general denial. The case ivas tried to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of Smith, upon which a judgment dismissing Crawford’s action ivas entered, and he has filed a petition in error here to review that judgment.

The pleadings support the judgment. The correctness of the court’s instructions depends upon the evidence adduced on the trial. We cannot review the evidence, because the bill of exceptions found in the record is not ratified by the clerk of the trial court as being the original or á true copy of the bill of exceptions allowed in the case. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 587b; Groneweg v. Mathewson, 52 Neb. 591.) It follows that the judgment of the district court must be, and is,

.Affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 N.W. 1078, 57 Neb. 503, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-smith-neb-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack