Jones v. Hayes

Nebraska Supreme Court

Jones v. Hayes

54 N.W. 858, 36 Neb. 526, 1893 Neb. LEXIS 99

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 1893

DocketNo. 5084

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 54 N.W. 858 (Jones v. Hayes) 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

Jones v. Hayes, 54 N.W. 858, 36 Neb. 526, 1893 Neb. LEXIS 99 (Neb. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Norval, J.

This was an action brought by A. S. Hayes upon a promissory note executed by A. W. Jones. Plaintiff re[527]*527covered a judgment in the court below for the sum of $546.34, and the defendant prosecutes error to this court, alleging that the judgment is not sustained by the evidenceaud is contrary to law.

We cannot review the proceedings, for the reason the records fails to disclose that a motion for a new trial was presented to the trial court, and its ruling obtained thereon. While the transcript contains a copy of a motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the attention of the court below was ever called thereto. It has been frequently decided by this court that in order to review the proceedings of a district court by a petition in error, a motion for a new trial must be made in that court and a ruling obtained on the motion. (Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb., 108; Gibson v. Arnold, 5 Id., 186; Lichty v. Clark, 10 Id., 472; Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Id., 128.) The petition in error is

Dismissed.

The other judges concur.

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

Norval, J.

This was an action brought by A. S. Hayes upon a promissory note executed by A. W. Jones. Plaintiff re[527]*527covered a judgment in the court below for the sum of $546.34, and the defendant prosecutes error to this court, alleging that the judgment is not sustained by the evidenceaud is contrary to law.

We cannot review the proceedings, for the reason the records fails to disclose that a motion for a new trial was presented to the trial court, and its ruling obtained thereon. While the transcript contains a copy of a motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the attention of the court below was ever called thereto. It has been frequently decided by this court that in order to review the proceedings of a district court by a petition in error, a motion for a new trial must be made in that court and a ruling obtained on the motion. (Cropsey v. Wiggenhorn, 3 Neb., 108; Gibson v. Arnold, 5 Id., 186; Lichty v. Clark, 10 Id., 472; Smith v. Spaulding, 34 Id., 128.) The petition in error is

Dismissed.

The other judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.W. 858, 36 Neb. 526, 1893 Neb. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-hayes-neb-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack