Minick v. Minick

Nebraska Supreme Court

Minick v. Minick

68 N.W. 374, 49 Neb. 89, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 717

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1896

DocketNo. 6720

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 68 N.W. 374 (Minick v. Minick) 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

Minick v. Minick, 68 N.W. 374, 49 Neb. 89, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 717 (Neb. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Norval, J.

This is a proceeding to review the decree of the district court of Nemaha county cancelling of record a real estate mortgage, the mortgage debt having been, paid in full.

A single ground for reversal is urged, namely, that the decree was rendered in vacation. This contention is not sustained by the record. While it is true the transcript discloses that on April 1, 1893, during the March, 1893, term of the district court, the case was tried and submitted to the court, and by agreement of the parties the court was to take the same under advisement and decide the same in vacation, and the decision when made should be of that term and of the date of the trial, it does not appear that the decree was rendered by the judge in vacation, except by the affidavit of Alice A. Minick filed in support of her application to vacate the decree. This affidavit not being incorporated in a bill of exceptions cannot be considered by us. The decree, so the record shows, was actually pronounced and entered upon the [90]*90court journal on and as of the date of August 18,1893. It purports on its face to have been rendered by the court, and not by the judge thereof in vacation. The presumption cannot be indulged that the decree was entered out of term. The transcript of the record of the trial court imports absolute verity. The decree is

Affirmed.

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

Norval, J.

This is a proceeding to review the decree of the district court of Nemaha county cancelling of record a real estate mortgage, the mortgage debt having been, paid in full.

A single ground for reversal is urged, namely, that the decree was rendered in vacation. This contention is not sustained by the record. While it is true the transcript discloses that on April 1, 1893, during the March, 1893, term of the district court, the case was tried and submitted to the court, and by agreement of the parties the court was to take the same under advisement and decide the same in vacation, and the decision when made should be of that term and of the date of the trial, it does not appear that the decree was rendered by the judge in vacation, except by the affidavit of Alice A. Minick filed in support of her application to vacate the decree. This affidavit not being incorporated in a bill of exceptions cannot be considered by us. The decree, so the record shows, was actually pronounced and entered upon the [90]*90court journal on and as of the date of August 18,1893. It purports on its face to have been rendered by the court, and not by the judge thereof in vacation. The presumption cannot be indulged that the decree was entered out of term. The transcript of the record of the trial court imports absolute verity. The decree is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 N.W. 374, 49 Neb. 89, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minick-v-minick-neb-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack