Miller v. Eastman

43 N.W. 179, 27 Neb. 408, 1889 Neb. LEXIS 243
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 1, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 N.W. 179 (Miller v. Eastman) 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
Miller v. Eastman, 43 N.W. 179, 27 Neb. 408, 1889 Neb. LEXIS 243 (Neb. 1889).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

On July 24, 1871, Dwight J. McCann commenced an action in the district court of Otoe county against Robert O. Old, on a promissory note, to recover the sum of two hundred and eighty dollars. Old was a non-resident, who at that time owned lots 1 and 2 in block 22, and lot 4 in block 17, in Belmont addition to Nebraska City.

Service was had by attachment levied on said lots 1 and 2, and notice by publication. December 22, 1871, judgment was rendered in said case in favor of the pláintiff for seventy-nine dollars and seventeen cents and costs, and a decree entered directing the sale of the lots attached to pay the same. The lots were duly advertised and sold. The sheriff made his report, and at the next term of said court, to-wit, on the 3d day of June, 1872, said sale was by the court confirmed, and the sheriff of said county directed to execute a deed for said lots to the purchaser at said sale— Dwight J. McCann. This deed was never executed, or if so, was not recorded. February 21, 1887, McCann, by an attorney in fact, conveyed said lots to Eastman, which deed was placed upon record February 22, 1887. On March 28, James S. Miller, the plaintiff, filed for record a deed of said lots purporting to have been executed February 24, 1887, by Robert O. Old, as grantor to said Miller. April 1, 1887, McCann made application to the district court of Otoe county for an order requiring the then sheriff of Otoe [411]*411county to execute thp sheriff’s deed to said lots, under the sale on the order of attachment and confirmation thereof in 1871. On April 4, 1887, this suit was instituted by Miller, the object and prayer of the petition herein being to quiet the title of said Miller as against the claims of the defendants, and to enjoin McCann from further proceeding to secure said sheriff’s deed. On the final hearing the court found that the title to said lots was in the plaintiff Miller, and the same was quieted and confirmed in him as against the claims of these defendants, Eastman and Mc-Cann, and they were perpetually enjoined from securing or placing on record any deed therefor from the sheriff of Otoe ' county, by reason (if the said judgment and sale. Eastman and McCann appeal to this court.

The first question presented is, Did the district court of Otoe county have jurisdiction in the attachment proceeding? The first ground of attachment under section 198 of the Code is, that the defendant, or one of several defendants, is a foreign corporation or a non-resident of the state.” The affidavit for an attachment is in the following form, omitting the title of the case:

“ State of Nebraska, j
“Couxty of Otoe, j
“D. J. McCann, being duly sworn, says that he is the plaintiff named in the above entitled action; that said action is founded upon a promissory note dated at Nebraska City in said county, March 10, 1860, for thirty-seven dollars and twenty cents, due six months after said date, with interest at five per cent per month from maturity, executed and delivered by the said defendant to Julian Met-calf, trustee for Martha Ann Metcalf, and by her endorsed and delivered to this plaintiff. And deponent further says that said claim is just; that, as affiant verily believes, the plaintiff justly ought to recover of and from the said defendant the sum of thirty-seven and -f-fo dollars, and interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per month from [412]*412the 10th day of September, 1860, amounting at the date of the commencement of this action to the sum of two hundred eighty dollars. And deponent further says, that the said defendant is a non-resident of the state of Nebraska, but is a resident of the territory of Colorado, and that affiant makes this affidavit for the purpose of procuring an order of attachment in said action. D. J. McCann.
“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of July, 1871. L. E. D’Gette,
“Notary Publio.”

This was sufficient to authorize the issuing and levy of the attachment. The affidavit for publication, omitting the title of the cause, is as follows:

“ D. J. McCann, being duly sworn, says that he is the plaintiff named in the above entitled action; that said action is brought to recover the sum of thirty-seven dollars and twenty cents, and interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per month from the 10th day of September, 1860, due plaintiff as indorsee of a certain promissory note for said sum, at interest as provided, from maturity, due six months after date thereof, to-wit, March 10,1860; amounting at the date of the commencement of this action to the sum of $280.

“ And deponent further says that the said defendant is a non-resident of the state of Nebraska, and is a resident of the territory of Colorado, and that service of a summons cannot be made upon the said defendant within the state of Nebraska, and that affiant makes this affidavit for the purpose of procuring service upon said defendant by publication in manner prescribed by law.

“D. J. McCann.
“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of July, 1871. L. F. D’Gette,

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

Related

Kroeger v. Parker
1927 OK 328 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Pettis v. Johnston
1920 OK 224 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Jones v. Danforth
99 N.W. 495 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 N.W. 179, 27 Neb. 408, 1889 Neb. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-eastman-neb-1889.