Estep v. Schlesinger

Nebraska Supreme Court

Estep v. Schlesinger

78 N.W. 383, 58 Neb. 62, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 116

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 1899

DocketNo. 8732

StatusPublished

This text of 78 N.W. 383 (Estep v. Schlesinger) 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

Estep v. Schlesinger, 78 N.W. 383, 58 Neb. 62, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 116 (Neb. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Sullivan, J.

This action was brought in the district court of Douglas county to foreclose three real estate mortgages. Isaac Wood and Eliza Wood were the fee owners of an undivided one-half of the mortgaged property. The other half was owned by two other defendants. The Woods answered denying plaintiff’s ownership of the mortgages and questioning the amount claimed to be due thereon. They also filed a cross-petition containing the usual allegations in actions for partition, and asked that the several shares and interests of the parties as therein alleged be confirmed and that referees be appointed to make allotment accordingly. To this pleading the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sustained. It is now urged that the ruling on the demurrer was erroneous and that the judgment of foreclosure should, therefore, be reversed.

We cannot consider the correctness of the decision, for the reason that no exception ivas taken. The order [63]*63being interlocutory, in the absence of an exception, is not reviewable. (Abbott v. Barton, 47 Neb. 822; Yager v. Lemp, 39 Neb. 93; Weich v. Calhoun, 22 Neb. 166.) Besides, this being an appeal, the only question for our determination is whether the judgment rendered is the one which ought to have been rendered on the pleadings and evidence. There is nothing whatever in the record before us that would warrant a decree for partition. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Sullivan, J.

This action was brought in the district court of Douglas county to foreclose three real estate mortgages. Isaac Wood and Eliza Wood were the fee owners of an undivided one-half of the mortgaged property. The other half was owned by two other defendants. The Woods answered denying plaintiff’s ownership of the mortgages and questioning the amount claimed to be due thereon. They also filed a cross-petition containing the usual allegations in actions for partition, and asked that the several shares and interests of the parties as therein alleged be confirmed and that referees be appointed to make allotment accordingly. To this pleading the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sustained. It is now urged that the ruling on the demurrer was erroneous and that the judgment of foreclosure should, therefore, be reversed.

We cannot consider the correctness of the decision, for the reason that no exception ivas taken. The order [63]*63being interlocutory, in the absence of an exception, is not reviewable. (Abbott v. Barton, 47 Neb. 822; Yager v. Lemp, 39 Neb. 93; Weich v. Calhoun, 22 Neb. 166.) Besides, this being an appeal, the only question for our determination is whether the judgment rendered is the one which ought to have been rendered on the pleadings and evidence. There is nothing whatever in the record before us that would warrant a decree for partition. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.W. 383, 58 Neb. 62, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estep-v-schlesinger-neb-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack