Nelson v. Alling

Nebraska Supreme Court

Nelson v. Alling

79 N.W. 162, 58 Neb. 606, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 247

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 1899

DocketNo. 10581

StatusPublished

This text of 79 N.W. 162 (Nelson v. Alling) 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

Nelson v. Alling, 79 N.W. 162, 58 Neb. 606, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 247 (Neb. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Sullivan, J.

This proceeding in error brings before us for review an order of the district court of Dawes county confirming a judicial sale of real estate. The defendant Nelson resisted the motion for confirmation on the grounds that the appraisers proceeded irregularly in making the appraisement, and that the valuation fixed by them upon the property was too low. The district court having decided these questions upon substantially conflicting evidence, its decision will not be disturbed. (Nebraska Loan & Building Ass'n v. Marshall, 51 Neb. 534.) In the case cited the rule was applied under circumstances quite similar to those in the case at bar. But if the evidence bearing on the question of valuation were sufficient to establish fraud in the appraisement, we could not for that reason alone reverse the order of confirmation, there being in the motion to vacate the appraisal no allegation of fraud to which such evidence is responsive. It is now the established doctrine of this court that the appraisement cannot be successfully assailed merely because the appraisers were mistaken in their valuation of the property. (Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790; Ecklund v. Willis, 44 Neb. 129; Kearney Land & In[608]*608vestment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601; Brown v. Fitzpatrick, 56 Neb. 61; Ballou v. Sherwood, 58 Neb. 20, 78 N. W. Rep. 383; Lockwood v. Cook, 58 Neb. 302, 78 N. W. Rep. 624; Michigan Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Richter, 58 Neb. 463, 78 N. W. Rep. 932.) The sale having been confirmed, at a special term held on September 27, 1898, the defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the court and denies the validity of the order. The point thus presented was considered and decided in the case of Nelson v. Farmland Security Co., 58 Neb. 604, 79 N. W. Rep. 161. It was there held that the term was properly convened and that the presiding judge was invested with authority to hear and determine causes properly on the calendar of the court. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Sullivan, J.

This proceeding in error brings before us for review an order of the district court of Dawes county confirming a judicial sale of real estate. The defendant Nelson resisted the motion for confirmation on the grounds that the appraisers proceeded irregularly in making the appraisement, and that the valuation fixed by them upon the property was too low. The district court having decided these questions upon substantially conflicting evidence, its decision will not be disturbed. (Nebraska Loan & Building Ass'n v. Marshall, 51 Neb. 534.) In the case cited the rule was applied under circumstances quite similar to those in the case at bar. But if the evidence bearing on the question of valuation were sufficient to establish fraud in the appraisement, we could not for that reason alone reverse the order of confirmation, there being in the motion to vacate the appraisal no allegation of fraud to which such evidence is responsive. It is now the established doctrine of this court that the appraisement cannot be successfully assailed merely because the appraisers were mistaken in their valuation of the property. (Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790; Ecklund v. Willis, 44 Neb. 129; Kearney Land & In[608]*608vestment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601; Brown v. Fitzpatrick, 56 Neb. 61; Ballou v. Sherwood, 58 Neb. 20, 78 N. W. Rep. 383; Lockwood v. Cook, 58 Neb. 302, 78 N. W. Rep. 624; Michigan Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Richter, 58 Neb. 463, 78 N. W. Rep. 932.) The sale having been confirmed, at a special term held on September 27, 1898, the defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the court and denies the validity of the order. The point thus presented was considered and decided in the case of Nelson v. Farmland Security Co., 58 Neb. 604, 79 N. W. Rep. 161. It was there held that the term was properly convened and that the presiding judge was invested with authority to hear and determine causes properly on the calendar of the court. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 N.W. 162, 58 Neb. 606, 1899 Neb. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-alling-neb-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack