State ex rel. Heinzelman v. Stull

69 N.W. 101, 49 Neb. 739, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 836
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 2, 1896
DocketNo. 8870
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 101 (State ex rel. Heinzelman v. Stull) 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
State ex rel. Heinzelman v. Stull, 69 N.W. 101, 49 Neb. 739, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 836 (Neb. 1896).

Opinion

Post, O. J.

The object of this proceeding is to require the respondent, as judge of the first judicial district, to fix the [740]*740amount of a supersedeas bond upon the appeal to this court .from an order appointing a receiver to take charge of and preserve the property of the Verdón Milling Company, a corporation impleaded with relators as a defendant in an action pending in the district court for Richardson county, in which W. O. Howland and others are plaintiffs. It is sufficient, without examining the other questions argued, that the writ must be denied upon the ground that the allowance by the district court of a supersedeas upon appeal from an order appointing a receiver pendente lite rests in the discretion of that court, and its discretion in that regard will not be controlled by means of the writ of mandamus. The question here involved was recently considered in Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Dutcher, 48 Neb., 755, resulting in a determination adverse to the claim of the relators, and which is necessarily decisive of this controversy.

Writ denied.

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

Related

Lowe v. Riley
77 N.W. 758 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 N.W. 101, 49 Neb. 739, 1896 Neb. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-heinzelman-v-stull-neb-1896.