Dederick v. Gillespie

Nebraska Supreme Court

Dederick v. Gillespie

88 N.W. 659, 63 Neb. 422, 1902 Neb. LEXIS 11

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1902

DocketNo. 10,912

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.W. 659 (Dederick v. Gillespie) 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

Dederick v. Gillespie, 88 N.W. 659, 63 Neb. 422, 1902 Neb. LEXIS 11 (Neb. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Norval, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order confirming a sale of real estate. That the notice of sale did not state the amount due on the decree, did not invalidate the sale. This has been expressly held by this court. Stratton v. Reisdorph, 35 Nebr., 314; Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Robbins, 53 Nebr., 776.

The remaining point — that the property was appraised at a sum greatly less than its actual value — can not be reviewed, because the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence adduced on the hearing. Neither in the caption nor in the certificate of allowance thereof, is it stated that the bill contains all the evidence in the case. It is merely recited in the caption that a certain affidavit embraced in the bill has been embodied as evidence by defendant. Whether other evidence was or was not adduced does not appear.

The order appealed from is accordingly

Affirmed.

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

Norval, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order confirming a sale of real estate. That the notice of sale did not state the amount due on the decree, did not invalidate the sale. This has been expressly held by this court. Stratton v. Reisdorph, 35 Nebr., 314; Amoskeag Savings Bank v. Robbins, 53 Nebr., 776.

The remaining point — that the property was appraised at a sum greatly less than its actual value — can not be reviewed, because the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence adduced on the hearing. Neither in the caption nor in the certificate of allowance thereof, is it stated that the bill contains all the evidence in the case. It is merely recited in the caption that a certain affidavit embraced in the bill has been embodied as evidence by defendant. Whether other evidence was or was not adduced does not appear.

The order appealed from is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.W. 659, 63 Neb. 422, 1902 Neb. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dederick-v-gillespie-neb-1902.