Forbes v. Morearty

74 N.W. 822, 54 Neb. 505, 1898 Neb. LEXIS 102
Nebraska Supreme Court·Decided April 8, 1898·No. No. 8006·Published

Opinion

Ryan, C.

In the record in this case we find the pleadings, a decree of foreclosure, and a supersedeas bond, but nothing else purporting to be a part of a transcript of the proceedings in the district court of Douglas county. There is likewise a bill of exceptions in which there are embodied a motion for an order for a writ of assistance, an affidavit in support of said motion, and certain orders made with respect to said motion. There is no certificat of the clerk of the district court identifying such motion and orders as a part of the record of the proceedings of said court. In appellant’s brief complaint is made of the order granting a writ of assistance and of no other order or judgment.

It is required in effect, by the provisions of section 675, Code of Civil Procedure, that to perfect his appeal a party appealing from a final order shall, inter alia, procure from the clerk of the district court and file in the office of the clerk of the supreme court a certified transcript of the proceedings had in the district court. In Moore v. Waterman, 40 Neb. 498, a compliance with the above requirement was held essential to confer jurisdiction upon this court. (See also Hoagland v. Van Etlen, 23 Neb. 462; Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Ayer, 38 Neb. 891; Record v. Butters, 42 Neb. 786; School District v. Cooper, 44 Neb. 714; Martin v. Fillmore County, 44 Neb. 719; McDonald v. Grabovo, 46 Neb. 406; Otis v. Butters, 46 Neb. 492; Felket v. Gooding, 47 Neb. 38; Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198; Union P. R. Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393.) The decree in this case was entered in the district court November 28, 1893, and a transcript thereof was not filed in this court until September 21, 1895. This court is, therefore, without [507] jurisdiction to enter a judgment on this branch of the case, and this appeal is accordingly

Dismissed.

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

Forbes v. Morearty, 74 N.W. 822, 54 Neb. 505, 1898 Neb. LEXIS 102 (Neb. 1898).

74 N.W. 822 (Forbes v. Morearty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hoagland v. Van Etten
23 Neb. 462 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1888)
Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Ayer
57 N.W. 567 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Moore v. Waterman
58 N.W. 940 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Record v. Butters
60 N.W. 1019 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
School District Number Forty-Nine v. Cooper
62 N.W. 1084 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Martin v. Fillmore County
62 N.W. 863 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
McDonald v. Grabow
64 N.W. 1093 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Otis v. Butters
64 N.W. 1093 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
Felber v. Gooding
66 N.W. 39 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Romberg v. Fokken
66 N.W. 282 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Union Pacific Railroad v. Kinney
66 N.W. 449 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)